Creationists

[cbirch2]

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]

This genuinely is what creationist think the theory of abiogensis says.

And a video like that really does pass for evidence among creationists.

Amazing.

 

[cbirch2]

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

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

As i said, i am thoroughly unimpressed by that webpage.

Most of it can be debunked by that simple explanation of statistical decay of atoms. Not all the atoms will decay. You can still find small amounts of C-14 in fossils of practically any age, but it is not enough to make an accurate prediction, which is why C-14 has limits on how old the samples can be.

Not to mention there are plenty of other radiometric dating methods that agree with each other.

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

From your own link, about speciation:

Most Creationists have viewed the fixity of species to be a central pillar of creationary thought. This view however, falls in the face of documented change in the formation of new species.

In a word, fuck you

 

[cbirch2]

Wow he even makes the entropy argument.

You would think a Ph. D would know that the laws of entropy dont apply to open systems. Life is by definition an open system.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.



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]

This genuinely is what creationist think the theory of abiogensis says.

And a video like that really does pass for evidence among creationists.

Amazing.

Just pointing out what an educated fool believes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

This is all i see





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

As i said, i am thoroughly unimpressed by that webpage.

Most of it can be debunked by that simple explanation of statistical decay of atoms. Not all the atoms will decay. You can still find small amounts of C-14 in fossils of practically any age, but it is not enough to make an accurate prediction, which is why C-14 has limits on how old the samples can be.

Not to mention there are plenty of other radiometric dating methods that agree with each other.

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

From your own link, about speciation:

Most Creationists have viewed the fixity of species to be a central pillar of creationary thought. This view however, falls in the face of documented change in the formation of new species.

In a word, fuck you

Ah yeah but what he is speaking of are variations that happen from the genetic pool not mutations.

I never denied new breeds arise within the same family.

Punk.

 

[cbirch2]

So you like mathematics.

Mathematics Disprove Evolution? The probability of spontaneous generation (creation vs. evolution) - YouTube

This genuinely is what creationist think the theory of abiogensis says.

And a video like that really does pass for evidence among creationists.

Amazing.

Just pointing out what an educated fool believes.

You must believe that. Because no set of facts and knowledge would lead one to think their argument is convincing, it must require belief and faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wow he even makes the entropy argument.

You would think a Ph. D would know that the laws of entropy dont apply to open systems. Life is by definition an open system.

You would think an educated fool would notice the entropy all around him.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I hope you enjoyed a dose of reality trekky fan.

 

[InDoctriNation]

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 ?

Nope. His name is Gob, and he creates sub-Gods and makes them think that they are the all powerful creators of everything, the alpha and the omega. But everything these sub-Gods create is actually created by Gob, for all intelligent creators and creations are made possible by the mind of Gob. At the end of time, all of the creations of the sub-Gods will be rectified by Gob, and the sub-Gods who acted immorally in their respective creations will be thrown into an everlasting pit of despair (a certain locale of Gob's anatomy). For instance, a sub-God who toys with his creation by sending himself as a blood sacrifice for the so-called sins of sentient creatures as a loophole for a stupid rule created by him..... well, things aren't looking too good for that sub-God.

Now where do I line up to get this taught in science class? It fits pretty well with the multiverse hypothesis...

 

[cbirch2]

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

Ive seen you and your sources commit all three of those.

 

[cbirch2]

Wow he even makes the entropy argument.

You would think a Ph. D would know that the laws of entropy dont apply to open systems. Life is by definition an open system.

You would think an educated fool would notice the entropy all around him.

The "entropy" all around me?

As if "entropy" is an actual substance. Lol.

Life is an open system by necessity, therefore the argument of entropy does not even apply. End of story, finito.

 

[cbirch2]

Topics of Interest: Molecular History Research Center

As i said, i am thoroughly unimpressed by that webpage.

Most of it can be debunked by that simple explanation of statistical decay of atoms. Not all the atoms will decay. You can still find small amounts of C-14 in fossils of practically any age, but it is not enough to make an accurate prediction, which is why C-14 has limits on how old the samples can be.

Not to mention there are plenty of other radiometric dating methods that agree with each other.



From your own link, about speciation:

Most Creationists have viewed the fixity of species to be a central pillar of creationary thought. This view however, falls in the face of documented change in the formation of new species.

In a word, fuck you

Ah yeah but what he is speaking of are variations that happen from the genetic pool not mutations.

I never denied new breeds arise within the same family.

Punk.

Lol and then when you claim satan planted all the transitional fossils its a pretty good argument.

Where do you draw the line? Are all of the big-cats related?

 

[daws101]

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 ?

why would I need a god when none exists, except in the minds of those who invented it.

 

[daws101]

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.

just stating the facts...

 

[daws101]

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

wrong again. they are not "perceived as fallacies" they in fact are, you have no credible evidence to prove otherwise.
open mind!!! to an educated person that means giving both sides of an issue equal weight.
to you, It means buy my bullshit whole sale.

 

[daws101]

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.

 

[daws101]

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]

fine example of a false premise!

 

[daws101]

So you like mathematics.

Mathematics Disprove Evolution? The probability of spontaneous generation (creation vs. evolution) - YouTube

This genuinely is what creationist think the theory of abiogensis says.

And a video like that really does pass for evidence among creationists.

Amazing.

Just pointing out what an educated fool believes.

so ignorance is bliss then?

 

[LOki]

Dummy you are the one that believes it happened it's on you.

No. YOU said, "... intelligence cannot arise on it's own," so it's NOT my responsibility to explain why. Douche.

Unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

Absolutely. Challenge enthusiastically accepted. AFTER you have finished what you've started first; then I will happily hand you your own ass ... again. First you must meet your obligations above, THEN we "get to it" ... NOT Before.

No. You are engaging again in pathological projection. You are avoiding your own responsibilities, simply because you know you cannot meet them; and you are illicitly attributing your own dishonest tactics to me.

No one's ever going to buy your bullshit here pal, because I will never tire of linking you right back to your sanctimonious hypocrisy.

Remember, YOU are the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; it's finally time for you to stop challenging us, and start meeting the challenges brought to you; it's time for you to finally explain this "creator" of yours, ... this unintelligent "Designer."

Chalk one up for God the creator.

What "Creator?" You keep referencing this "Creator," yet there's no evidence of His existence. NONE! You keep saying [this thing or that] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but that's just asserting invalid logic.

It is INVALID to require the acceptance of your conclusion in the premise OR the arguments that lead to your conclusion.

You have done LITERALLY NOTHING to demonstrate or explain the "intelligence" of this "Designer" of yours. You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "Designer" of yours--and all of his attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as fact of reality.

So, FUCK NO! there's no chalking of ANYTHING up to this fictitious Creator of yours.

Yeah it was also the brain that was creative and created a theory that goes against the the evidence that is observed for a belief that has not been observed.

"Intelligent Design" is this precise "... theory that goes against the the evidence that is observed for a belief that has not been observed."

Good to see you're capable of momentary lucidity.

God created all if there are any natural processes it was put in motion by God. If God created all things that came in to existence these natural processes are working because of design.

You keep saying [this thing or that, and now "any natural processes"] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but that's just asserting invalid logic.

Why do you keep doing that? If asserting the existence of this "Creator" is valid in reality, why is it that you simply cannot put together verifiable evidence AND valid logic to validate your assertion?

What's up with that?

There is so many evidences of design that goes ignored you and others because you have not laid eyes on the creator but i assure you all will see the creator in due time.

"There is so many evidences of design ...", yet you cannot bring as single one that does not require you to first assert the premise of a "designer" in order for such to be "... evidences of design."

What's up with that?

That is correct intelligence is responsible for so much is it logical to believe that all of these things came about by chance or someone designed them ?

If the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made," why do you persist in introducing your imaginary "Creator" to the subject?

What's up with that?

God has always existed ...

Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence says otherwise. Until you overcome that, repeating this assertion is just meaningless.

... the intelligence dealing with man was definitely created ...

Sure, by natural processes that are valid without having to assert the existence of this imaginary "Creator" of yours.

... how ever God has always existed and he has always been God so his intelligence has always existed.

Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence says otherwise. Until you overcome that, repeating this assertion is just meaningless.

You guys keep trying to put the same limitations on God that is upon man.

Example please.

Man had a beginning where God has not.

What is this "God" thing you keep referencing? Until you provide a sensible, logically valid explanation of what this "God" thing you keep referencing is, your repeated referencing of "God" is just meaningless.

Man believes time began with the universe who or what created the universe,well God did,that is why he is not bound by the time of man. God existed outside of time and our universe.

What is this "God" thing you keep referencing? Until you provide a sensible, logically valid explanation of what this "God" thing you keep referencing to is, your repeated referencing of "God" is just meaningless.

You keep saying [this thing or that, and now "any natural processes"] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but that's just asserting invalid logic.

Why do you keep doing that? If asserting the existence of this "Creator" is valid in reality, why is it that you simply cannot put together verifiable evidence AND valid logic to validate your assertion?

What's up with that?

God didn't create himself he has always existed.

And I'll assert that the universe has always existed.

My assertion enjoys the benefits of the evident universe, and not having to assert a "God" in denial of the valid logic applied to verifiable evidence that says otherwise.

The laws of man are not the laws for God other then the ones he gave to man to obey to the best of our ability.

What is this "God" thing you keep referencing? Until you provide a sensible, logically valid explanation of what this "God" thing you keep referencing is, your repeated referencing of "God" is just meaningless; and laws regarding this meaningless "God" of yours are entirely irrelevant.

... all of this just didn't happen by chance through natural processes.

If asserting the existence of this "Creator" is valid in reality, why is it that you simply cannot put together verifiable evidence AND valid logic to validate your assertion?

What's up with that?

 

[LOki]

The answer is yes everything was created by God.

What is this "God" thing you keep referencing?

A supernatural being that is all knowing and all powerful,the creator of everything we see,and don't see.

Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence says there's no reason to assert the existence of such a thing. Until you overcome that, repeating this assertion is just meaningless.

So really, what is this "God" thing you keep referencing? Until you provide a sensible, logically valid explanation of what this "God" thing you keep referencing to is, your repeated referencing of "God" is just meaningless.

You have done LITERALLY NOTHING to demonstrate or explain the existence, let alone the "intelligence," of this "God" thing of yours. You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "God" thing of yours--and all of its attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as valid facts of reality.

If asserting the existence of this "God" of yours is valid in reality, why is it that you simply cannot put together verifiable evidence AND valid logic to validate your assertion?

What's up with that?