Creationists

[daws101]

Whats the matter you just can't bring yourself to watch something that makes sense and is agains't your beliefs ?

You are a closed minded little twit and that is why you have been mislead. The sad thing is you won't know it until it's too late.

LMAO.

Is there any possible conclusion that an orginization dedicated to "reviving the reformation" will arrive at, other than a creationist one?

It doesnt make me ignorant for ignoring your source. Only an idiot believes obviously biased sources.

Besides, its an hour long video about a well debunked topic. Your flaunting the dumbest of the creationist arguments and you think your winning the debate. Arguing with you is like arguing with a tape recording of kent hovind.

its funny. If i quote wiki, im being a biased liberal quoting a biased source. If you quote shit like the creation museum, your just the only one in touch with reality. That about how it goes?

I have been saying all along your presuppositions will cause us to look at evidence differently do you understand this ?

Most people who write on wiki on this issue are on your side of the debate get it ? but they are not biased is that what you're claiming and my sources are ?

he's not claiming anything your "sources" are bias and have been from the very beginning based on these facts:
1. false premise.
2. no credible evidence
3. assuming facts not in evidence
4. ethnocentric pov: eth·no·cen·tric adj \ˌeth-nō-ˈsen-trik\
Definition of ETHNOCENTRIC
: characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior
5. threating violence or death to non practitioners.
6.false comparisons
7. wrong, false, or zero credentials on the subject matter.
etc...

 

[cbirch2]

Whats the matter you just can't bring yourself to watch something that makes sense and is agains't your beliefs ?

You are a closed minded little twit and that is why you have been mislead. The sad thing is you won't know it until it's too late.

LMAO.

Is there any possible conclusion that an orginization dedicated to "reviving the reformation" will arrive at, other than a creationist one?

It doesnt make me ignorant for ignoring your source. Only an idiot believes obviously biased sources.

Besides, its an hour long video about a well debunked topic. Your flaunting the dumbest of the creationist arguments and you think your winning the debate. Arguing with you is like arguing with a tape recording of kent hovind.

its funny. If i quote wiki, im being a biased liberal quoting a biased source. If you quote shit like the creation museum, your just the only one in touch with reality. That about how it goes?

I have been saying all along your presuppositions will cause us to look at evidence differently do you understand this ?

Most people who write on wiki on this issue are on your side of the debate get it ? but they are not biased is that what you're claiming and my sources are ?

Look wiki is at least sourced at the bottom, and from my experience happens to match up fairly well with other outside sources.

But yet, i have yet to see one creationist website that impresses me. Rather, they usually make very simple logical mistakes that a simple understanding of general education (math, history, chemistry, biology), would indicate is wrong.

Browsing around websites like answersingenesis.org, its pretty obviously full of blatant fallacies and total non-understandings. When any major part of your website can be thrown out and disproved by a layman, you should just discredit the entire website. And your websites just dont hold up.

 

[InDoctriNation]

using man made items such as cars to advance the intelligent design myth is laughable ALL man made items are clunky, inefficient and shoddy, compared to your so called god's works.
your "god" does not use fabricated materials such as steel, rubber, fiberglass.

But his god does use those materials, since everything that has ever been created (cars, buildings, the mona lisa, the art display of the cucifix in urine) was created by god, according to him!

Yes,everything you see touch and feel was the result of my Gods mind.

Maybe, but your God's mind was actually created by my God, and everything that your God perceives is the result of my God's mind. My God also has a bigger spaceless, timeless dick than your God.

 

[daws101]

May 11 2011
The world population has grown tremendously over the past two thousand years. In 1999, the world population passed the six billion mark.
Latest official current world population estimate, for mid-year 2010, is estimated at 6,852,472,823.

The chart below shows past world population data back to the year one and future world population projections through the year 2050.


World Population Growth



Year

Population



1

200 million



1000

275 million



1500

450 million



1650

500 million



1750

700 million



1804

1 billion



1850

1.2 billion



1900

1.6 billion



1927

2 billion



1950

2.55 billion



1955

2.8 billion



1960

3 billion



1965

3.3 billion



1970

3.7 billion



1975

4 billion



1980

4.5 billion



1985

4.85 billion



1990

5.3 billion



1995

5.7 billion



1999

6 billion



2006

6.5 billion



2009

6.8 billion



2011

7 billion



2025

8 billion



2043

9 billion


World Population - The Current World Population

dodge. and weren't you warned about walls of text ?

Not walls,just a little post to show you how the worlds population boomed over the last 2,000 years can you imagine what it would have been if we went back from the time evolutionist claim man showed up on the earth ?

But anyhow let's not let facts get in the way right.

conveniently left out all of the deaths in the last 2,000 years and no prediction for 2040. still a dodge
does not answer the descendants of Noah question.

 

[cbirch2]

using man made items such as cars to advance the intelligent design myth is laughable ALL man made items are clunky, inefficient and shoddy, compared to your so called god's works.
your "god" does not use fabricated materials such as steel, rubber, fiberglass.

But his god does use those materials, since everything that has ever been created (cars, buildings, the mona lisa, the art display of the cucifix in urine) was created by god, according to him!

Yes,everything you see touch and feel was the result of my Gods mind.

Do you feel see or touch anything other than up quarks, down quarks, electrons, or photons?

Lets ignore gluons, the W/Z bosons, and neutrinos just for simplicity.

Is anything around you anything other than those 4 types of particles?

Please realize your dealing with someone whose major was originally supposed to be particle physics/chemistry. Cells are biochemical machines. Complex, very impressive, biochemical machines, but biochemical machines none the less. Theyre just extensions of the laws that govern individual molecules.

 

[daws101]

Anyone who believes life can spontaneously generate itself from non-life,anyone who believes non-intelligence can produce intelligence. Anyone who believes an organism can lose a function and still survive natural selection.

The car was a great example and it went right over your head.

using man made items such as cars to advance the intelligent design myth is laughable ALL man made items are clunky, inefficient and shoddy, compared to your so called god's works.
your "god" does not use fabricated materials such as steel, rubber, fiberglass.

What it should show you is life and the universe is much more complex and so is the creator. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

no your not, it's not a valid example (yours not mine)

 

[cbirch2]

Anyone who believes life can spontaneously generate itself from non-life,anyone who believes non-intelligence can produce intelligence. Anyone who believes an organism can lose a function and still survive natural selection.

The car was a great example and it went right over your head.

using man made items such as cars to advance the intelligent design myth is laughable ALL man made items are clunky, inefficient and shoddy, compared to your so called god's works.
your "god" does not use fabricated materials such as steel, rubber, fiberglass.

What it should show you is life and the universe is much more complex and so is the creator. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

No see the problem is that the we understand the complexities of life.

Its just that you dont.

 

[daws101]

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Job 31:15 Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One shape us in the womb?

Psa 139:13

(ASV) For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb.

(BBE) My flesh was made by you, and my parts joined together in my mother's body.

(CEV) You are the one who put me together inside my mother's body,

The answer is yes everything was created by God.

once again, not science!

It goes to show man and his theories are at odds with God. I would say Gods creations are science, it's just that men of science don't know how he did it.

no it doesn't it shows only your belief that it does .
it's not science or scientific
it's only your opinion and like assholes everybody has one, and yours stinks!

 

[daws101]

But his god does use those materials, since everything that has ever been created (cars, buildings, the mona lisa, the art display of the cucifix in urine) was created by god, according to him!

Yes,everything you see touch and feel was the result of my Gods mind.

Maybe, but your God's mind was actually created by my God, and everything that your God perceives is the result of my God's mind. My God also has a bigger spaceless, timeless dick than your God.

once your god and my god were standing on a bridge.
your god says " I gotta piss " whips it out tosses it over the side 1 second later a splash.
my god says "that's a good idea", whips his out tosses it over the side 1second later a splash.
your god reels his dick in, it takes about a minute.
my god smiles.
my god reels his dick in, it takes 5 minutes.
your god says "wow that water was cold !'
"deep too." replies my god.

 

[cbirch2]

Not saying that,the only natural systems is ones that God put in motion. Like the hydrologic system and the seasons and adaptations.

That leaves me still wondering what your answer is to whether snowflakes (or any other similar, natural process) can be formed or created without intelligence.

Seasons,snow,rain,snowflakes,summer heat,spring,are natural processes that was put in motion by the creator ,who created all things.

Whoever designed the computer and programmed it was still responsible for what the computer was capable of.

On a rare concilliatory note: this is a genuinely valid and intelligent statement.

I dont know why you cant apply this same logic to biology, life, an evolution. If you would, we would be on the same page, possibly.

God can still be the creator without physically sculpting cells and animals. How cells and chemicals function is well understood. The real mysteries are things like, why are all electric charges multiples of the elementary charge? Why is plancks constant 6.62606957(29)×10−34? Why is the speed of light slightly less than 3,000,000 m/s?

This is how god really works, if he/she exists.

Man has always been intelligent we can see that by the things they built and designed absent of the technology we possess today.

Really?

How do you explain speaking and writing? Did we always have them? What was the first spoken or written language?

How about tools? Could we always use all the tools we have today? What were the first tools?

Could we always do math? Who invented math?

 

[cbirch2]

K we collectively shit on you enough so im good for now.

 

[Youwerecreated]

But his god does use those materials, since everything that has ever been created (cars, buildings, the mona lisa, the art display of the cucifix in urine) was created by god, according to him!

Yes,everything you see touch and feel was the result of my Gods mind.

Maybe, but your God's mind was actually created by my God, and everything that your God perceives is the result of my God's mind. My God also has a bigger spaceless, timeless dick than your God.

Who is your God naturalism ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

LMAO.

Is there any possible conclusion that an orginization dedicated to "reviving the reformation" will arrive at, other than a creationist one?

It doesnt make me ignorant for ignoring your source. Only an idiot believes obviously biased sources.

Besides, its an hour long video about a well debunked topic. Your flaunting the dumbest of the creationist arguments and you think your winning the debate. Arguing with you is like arguing with a tape recording of kent hovind.

its funny. If i quote wiki, im being a biased liberal quoting a biased source. If you quote shit like the creation museum, your just the only one in touch with reality. That about how it goes?

I have been saying all along your presuppositions will cause us to look at evidence differently do you understand this ?

Most people who write on wiki on this issue are on your side of the debate get it ? but they are not biased is that what you're claiming and my sources are ?

he's not claiming anything your "sources" are bias and have been from the very beginning based on these facts:
1. false premise.
2. no credible evidence
3. assuming facts not in evidence
4. ethnocentric pov: eth·no·cen·tric adj \ˌeth-nō-ˈsen-trik\
Definition of ETHNOCENTRIC
: characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior
5. threating violence or death to non practitioners.
6.false comparisons
7. wrong, false, or zero credentials on the subject matter.
etc...

Troll.

 

[Youwerecreated]

LMAO.

Is there any possible conclusion that an orginization dedicated to "reviving the reformation" will arrive at, other than a creationist one?

It doesnt make me ignorant for ignoring your source. Only an idiot believes obviously biased sources.

Besides, its an hour long video about a well debunked topic. Your flaunting the dumbest of the creationist arguments and you think your winning the debate. Arguing with you is like arguing with a tape recording of kent hovind.

its funny. If i quote wiki, im being a biased liberal quoting a biased source. If you quote shit like the creation museum, your just the only one in touch with reality. That about how it goes?

I have been saying all along your presuppositions will cause us to look at evidence differently do you understand this ?

Most people who write on wiki on this issue are on your side of the debate get it ? but they are not biased is that what you're claiming and my sources are ?

Look wiki is at least sourced at the bottom, and from my experience happens to match up fairly well with other outside sources.

But yet, i have yet to see one creationist website that impresses me. Rather, they usually make very simple logical mistakes that a simple understanding of general education (math, history, chemistry, biology), would indicate is wrong.

Browsing around websites like answersingenesis.org, its pretty obviously full of blatant fallacies and total non-understandings. When any major part of your website can be thrown out and disproved by a layman, you should just discredit the entire website. And your websites just dont hold up.

It's only perceived as fallalcies because you have never truly looked at it with an open mind.

Well i also use Professor Browns site let's see what your problems with him are.

Michael E. Brown PhD: Molecular History Research Center

 

[Youwerecreated]

K we collectively shit on you enough so im good for now.

You are not big enough to crap on me boy,i'd do to you what i use to do to the Qb's. You are no more then a fart bubble from what i can tell.

 

[cbirch2]

I have been saying all along your presuppositions will cause us to look at evidence differently do you understand this ?

Most people who write on wiki on this issue are on your side of the debate get it ? but they are not biased is that what you're claiming and my sources are ?

Look wiki is at least sourced at the bottom, and from my experience happens to match up fairly well with other outside sources.

But yet, i have yet to see one creationist website that impresses me. Rather, they usually make very simple logical mistakes that a simple understanding of general education (math, history, chemistry, biology), would indicate is wrong.

Browsing around websites like answersingenesis.org, its pretty obviously full of blatant fallacies and total non-understandings. When any major part of your website can be thrown out and disproved by a layman, you should just discredit the entire website. And your websites just dont hold up.

It's only perceived as fallalcies because you have never truly looked at it with an open mind.

Well i also use Professor Browns site let's see what your problems with him are.

Michael E. Brown PhD: Molecular History Research Center

Can you point me to some points that this Michael Brown makes?

This is all i see

Why is it that amino acids are still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of years? This question was faced by evolutionists in the 1950s and 1960s, yet no one ever came up with a viable answer.

The existence of viable ancient DNA in the spores of bacterium, that should have degraded long ago, is an interesting problem for Evolutionists that will not go away. I am sure this test will be a point of contention between Creationists and Evolutionists in the future.

By what mechanism does an amino acid, or nucleic acid in the case of DNA/RNA, decay while in a fossil?

In short, some form of radioactive decay. Ionizing radiation impacting the molecules, or spontaneous decay of the atoms themselves.

This is statistical. One single atom may never decay, even if a population statistically will. Eventually you are bound to find some intact DNA segments.

If hes talking about some other form of decay, enlighten me.

The rest of this points on that page arent very good pieces of evidence.

 

[cbirch2]

K we collectively shit on you enough so im good for now.

You are not big enough to crap on me boy,i'd do to you what i use to do to the Qb's. You are no more then a fart bubble from what i can tell.

Thats why you just ignore every fact lol

 

[cbirch2]

I really want to get into this physics dicussion though.

In your mind, what are the basic constituents of the things around you, and of you yourself?

Is that answer to that question: quanta called up and down quarks bound together by gluons into nucleons such as the proton, being orbited by quanta called electrons, all exchanging electromagnetic energy via the photon?

Because it should be.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That leaves me still wondering what your answer is to whether snowflakes (or any other similar, natural process) can be formed or created without intelligence.

Seasons,snow,rain,snowflakes,summer heat,spring,are natural processes that was put in motion by the creator ,who created all things.

Whoever designed the computer and programmed it was still responsible for what the computer was capable of.

On a rare concilliatory note: this is a genuinely valid and intelligent statement.

I dont know why you cant apply this same logic to biology, life, an evolution. If you would, we would be on the same page, possibly.

God can still be the creator without physically sculpting cells and animals. How cells and chemicals function is well understood. The real mysteries are things like, why are all electric charges multiples of the elementary charge? Why is plancks constant 6.62606957(29)×10−34? Why is the speed of light slightly less than 3,000,000 m/s?

This is how god really works, if he/she exists.

Man has always been intelligent we can see that by the things they built and designed absent of the technology we possess today.

Really?

How do you explain speaking and writing? Did we always have them? What was the first spoken or written language?

How about tools? Could we always use all the tools we have today? What were the first tools?

Could we always do math? Who invented math?

So you like mathematics.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YinrToIKJtg]Mathematics Disprove Evolution? The probability of spontaneous generation (creation vs. evolution) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look wiki is at least sourced at the bottom, and from my experience happens to match up fairly well with other outside sources.

But yet, i have yet to see one creationist website that impresses me. Rather, they usually make very simple logical mistakes that a simple understanding of general education (math, history, chemistry, biology), would indicate is wrong.

Browsing around websites like answersingenesis.org, its pretty obviously full of blatant fallacies and total non-understandings. When any major part of your website can be thrown out and disproved by a layman, you should just discredit the entire website. And your websites just dont hold up.

It's only perceived as fallalcies because you have never truly looked at it with an open mind.

Well i also use Professor Browns site let's see what your problems with him are.

Michael E. Brown PhD: Molecular History Research Center

Can you point me to some points that this Michael Brown makes?

This is all i see

Why is it that amino acids are still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of years? This question was faced by evolutionists in the 1950s and 1960s, yet no one ever came up with a viable answer.

The existence of viable ancient DNA in the spores of bacterium, that should have degraded long ago, is an interesting problem for Evolutionists that will not go away. I am sure this test will be a point of contention between Creationists and Evolutionists in the future.

By what mechanism does an amino acid, or nucleic acid in the case of DNA/RNA, decay while in a fossil?

In short, some form of radioactive decay. Ionizing radiation impacting the molecules, or spontaneous decay of the atoms themselves.

This is statistical. One single atom may never decay, even if a population statistically will. Eventually you are bound to find some intact DNA segments.

If hes talking about some other form of decay, enlighten me.

The rest of this points on that page arent very good pieces of evidence.

Topics of Interest: Molecular History Research Center

Mike's Origins Resource: A PhD Creationist's view of Science, Origins, and the Future Hope of the Human Race.