Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

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...

A science class.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Are you denying that all the components for life have to be formed precisely and come together for life to take place ?

 

[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.

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.

You like to put words in peoples mouths.

The components of most systems on earth remain on earth. In this sense, the earth is a closed system.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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:


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?

Your point ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

You mean the same way they invented the idea that all living organisms are related

 

[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

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.

I presented plenty you just don't want to believe it.just admit you have a dog in the hunt.

 

[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]

fine example of a false premise!

Explain the false false premise ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

Apparently so if you believe life was not directed by someone and believe in chance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

Hey you don't have to believe in the creator many won't and that is precisely why the world is in the condition it is in.

Just trying to help you out but some people can't be helped.

Many will taste humility.

 

[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.

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.

What is the purpose of the atmosphere ? Another piece of evidence of design as well as gravity.

 

[cbirch2]

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.

You like to put words in peoples mouths.

The components of most systems on earth remain on earth. In this sense, the earth is a closed system.

lol life isnt

 

[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.

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

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

Are you denying that all the components for life have to be formed precisely and come together for life to take place ?

Im saying it not as if a group of molecules are thrown together like bowling balls and must come together just right.

Its all basically 4 types of organic molecules. See any similarities?

Nucleic acids:

Amino acid:

fatty acid:

Glucose:

OK ill teach you organic chemistry.

Theyre all just rings or chains of carbon with functional groups of N, H, or O attatched somewhere. Considering these are just a handful molecules that are electromagnetically attracted to each other in specific ways, they can form pretty readily.

From here you just have to go from these single monomers, to polymers (sugars, lipids, proteins, and DNA/RNA).

And then you have to wonder what happens when you have the oceans of the earth filled with these things. We already know that lipids like to form small spherical membranes in aqueous solutions. You would think that random concoctions of amino acids and nucleic acids would dissolve into the lipid membranes that we talked about above, and this would happen pretty much everywhere. And from there theres a lot of reactions that can take place.

Your picture of chemistry is just all wrong. Its like you think its analogous to throwing boards together and building a house. It's not.

 

[cbirch2]

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?

Your point ?

My point is that your argument has a cop out.

My argument is that all of these big cats are related. The tiger, the lion, the leopard, and the jaguar are all examples of evolution. Not only that, but if you would trace their lineage back far enough, you would see theyre related to dogs as well, and by the same process!

But you can claim something like: sure all big cats are related, thats just variation within a family. But obviously dogs and cats are not related, thats just ridiculous. There anatomy is totally different.

Cop out

The only reason you can claim that is because any common ancestor is long dead. And when we point to fossils your general response is to just act like they dont exist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

You like to put words in peoples mouths.

The components of most systems on earth remain on earth. In this sense, the earth is a closed system.

lol life isnt

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?

by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *

The popular syndicated columnist, Sydney Harris, recently commented on the evolution/entropy conflict as follows:


There is a factor called "entropy" in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.1

As Harris points out, the law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity. Creationists have been pointing out this serious contradiction for years, and it is encouraging that at least some evolutionists (such as Harris) are beginning to be aware of it.

How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question - because it seems to me the question most worth asking and working upon with all our intellectual and scientific resources.2


Rest of article here you need to see this contradiction.

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?

 

[cbirch2]

You like to put words in peoples mouths.

The components of most systems on earth remain on earth. In this sense, the earth is a closed system.

lol life isnt

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?

by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *

The popular syndicated columnist, Sydney Harris, recently commented on the evolution/entropy conflict as follows:


There is a factor called "entropy" in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.1

As Harris points out, the law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity. Creationists have been pointing out this serious contradiction for years, and it is encouraging that at least some evolutionists (such as Harris) are beginning to be aware of it.

How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question - because it seems to me the question most worth asking and working upon with all our intellectual and scientific resources.2


Rest of article here you need to see this contradiction.

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?

Yea again i will tell that the law of entropy does not apply to an open system.

Does the law of entropy apply to DNA polymerase and the replication of genes??? Nooooo. Open system.....

Thats all i have to say about your dumb little creationist link. Will you stop using those?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

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

Are you denying that all the components for life have to be formed precisely and come together for life to take place ?

Im saying it not as if a group of molecules are thrown together like bowling balls and must come together just right.

Its all basically 4 types of organic molecules. See any similarities?

Nucleic acids:

Amino acid:

fatty acid:

Glucose:

OK ill teach you organic chemistry.

Theyre all just rings or chains of carbon with functional groups of N, H, or O attatched somewhere. Considering these are just a handful molecules that are electromagnetically attracted to each other in specific ways, they can form pretty readily.

From here you just have to go from these single monomers, to polymers (sugars, lipids, proteins, and DNA/RNA).

And then you have to wonder what happens when you have the oceans of the earth filled with these things. We already know that lipids like to form small spherical membranes in aqueous solutions. You would think that random concoctions of amino acids and nucleic acids would dissolve into the lipid membranes that we talked about above, and this would happen pretty much everywhere. And from there theres a lot of reactions that can take place.

Your picture of chemistry is just all wrong. Its like you think its analogous to throwing boards together and building a house. It's not.

So where do you get the amino acids we know what oxygen does to amino acid binding blocks ? Oxygen is poisonous to organic and inorganic material.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

Your point ?

My point is that your argument has a cop out.

My argument is that all of these big cats are related. The tiger, the lion, the leopard, and the jaguar are all examples of evolution. Not only that, but if you would trace their lineage back far enough, you would see theyre related to dogs as well, and by the same process!

But you can claim something like: sure all big cats are related, thats just variation within a family. But obviously dogs and cats are not related, thats just ridiculous. There anatomy is totally different.

Cop out

The only reason you can claim that is because any common ancestor is long dead. And when we point to fossils your general response is to just act like they dont exist.

Have you not read where i believe variations happened within each family.

 

[Youwerecreated]

lol life isnt

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?

by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *

The popular syndicated columnist, Sydney Harris, recently commented on the evolution/entropy conflict as follows:


There is a factor called "entropy" in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.1

As Harris points out, the law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity. Creationists have been pointing out this serious contradiction for years, and it is encouraging that at least some evolutionists (such as Harris) are beginning to be aware of it.

How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question - because it seems to me the question most worth asking and working upon with all our intellectual and scientific resources.2


Rest of article here you need to see this contradiction.

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?

Yea again i will tell that the law of entropy does not apply to an open system.

Does the law of entropy apply to DNA polymerase and the replication of genes??? Nooooo. Open system.....

Thats all i have to say about your dumb little creationist link. Will you stop using those?

Why because men of science contradict your points ?

I have asked you the purpose of gravity and our atmosphere ? why won't you answer the questions ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Fossils can only be preserved by rapid burial because oxygen leads to rapid decay. Where were you educated ?

So how do we have so many nicely preserved fossils ? This evidence is consistent with the flood causing a lot of mud. What can bury a big dinosaur so fast ?
Have you ever seen a fish decay and how fast it takes place ?

But yet we find fish preserved in rock imagine that.

 

[cbirch2]

Are you denying that all the components for life have to be formed precisely and come together for life to take place ?

Im saying it not as if a group of molecules are thrown together like bowling balls and must come together just right.

Its all basically 4 types of organic molecules. See any similarities?

Nucleic acids:

Amino acid:

fatty acid:

Glucose:

OK ill teach you organic chemistry.

Theyre all just rings or chains of carbon with functional groups of N, H, or O attatched somewhere. Considering these are just a handful molecules that are electromagnetically attracted to each other in specific ways, they can form pretty readily.

From here you just have to go from these single monomers, to polymers (sugars, lipids, proteins, and DNA/RNA).

And then you have to wonder what happens when you have the oceans of the earth filled with these things. We already know that lipids like to form small spherical membranes in aqueous solutions. You would think that random concoctions of amino acids and nucleic acids would dissolve into the lipid membranes that we talked about above, and this would happen pretty much everywhere. And from there theres a lot of reactions that can take place.

Your picture of chemistry is just all wrong. Its like you think its analogous to throwing boards together and building a house. It's not.

So where do you get the amino acids we know what oxygen does to amino acid binding blocks ? Oxygen is poisonous to organic and inorganic material.

Free oxygen would not have existed in early earth for precisely this reason. All of it is already readily bound to other molecules, mostly carbon, to form CO2. You cant have oxidation without free oxygen.

There had to have been a mechanism to break molecular bonds and form free oxygen. That didnt happen until plants slowly began to oxygenate the atmosphere. For earths early history our atmosphere was very different.