Creationists

[LOki]

What verfiable evidence do you have for macro-evolution ?

The entire fossil record, the verifiable relationship between genotype and phenotype, and the observed instances of contemporary speciation--such as those evidenced by ring species.

What verifiable evidence do you have for the big bang ?

The current expansion of the entire observable universe.

What verifiable evidence do you have for life coming about through a narural process ?

The self-evident fact that life IS a natural process. The verifiable evidence of natural processes bringing about all manner of organization and complexity (snowflakes, ripples on ponds, organic compounds, etc.). The verifiable evidence that life is maintained and promoted through natural processes, and that life is impossible without natural processes.

What you have is another mans opinions of the evidence.

Nope. That would be religion; and even if I had religion, I am possessed of sufficient intellectual integrity to NOT promote it's baseless preconceptions as intellectually valid conclusions. I actually have enough courage in my convictions to test them against objective reality, using VALID logic; and I have sufficient humility in my convictions to accept and declare the uncertainties in them, as well as the errors in them when they are discovered.

And, unlike you, what I certainly am NOT asserting is my own superstition and Tooth-Fairy in place of my ignorance and/or uncertainty.

So, now that I have once again made an intellectually ingenuous response to your requests, why don't you reciprocate? Why don't you provide the kind of response, in both detail and intellectual validity that you require from my responses?

What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?​

The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.

For a change of pace, why don't you prove me wrong?

 

[cbirch2]

Yesterdays news:

Hubble Captures Violent Birth Pangs of Enormous Star | Wired Science | Wired.com

Oxygen on mars.

Is there enough oxygen on Mars to support life?

Im thoroughly confused....

What did that have to do with anything?

 

[daws101]

There is only one Holy book that claims responsibility for all creation. And that book is the bible and it can be supported by science.

there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.
__________________

The bible says ten times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind and after billions of observations, what do we see ? Kinds bringing forth offspring after their own kind. So do kinds bring forth after their own kind ?

the bible is not a valid source of "SCIENTIFIC" evidence,
the observations by illiterate goat herders is not valid.
the only kind I see an ignorant kind spewing nonsense.

 

[cbirch2]

The problem is your definition of macroevolution.

I can show you plenty of examples of speciation, particularly with plants. But you dont accept speciation as an example of macroevolution, because you dont accept the concept of a species.

The only proof you will accept is a monkey giving birth to a human, which is both impossible and gross misrepresentation of science.

 

[daws101]

Honesty test. The bible says ten times kinds bring forth after their own kind does science support this comment in the bible after billions of observations ?

Depends on what it means by kind, I would suppose! But generally speaking, yes. Of course, that doesn't really mean the bible is supported by science. I'm sure I could go pick some examples from any number of fiction books, or even probably other holy books, that are accurate.

Also, have you read all the other holy books and know that none of them say their gods are responsible for creation?

Once again,

Even if they do they would easily be refuted by science like the koran.

And you are laughing when the bible is supportyed by the evidence ?

How bout a little more.

Could man know these things when the bible was written and has science confirmed them.

Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.


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

Job 38:16 Have you gone to the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?


There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor . Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

Jon 2:5 Waters encompassed me, even to the soul; the depth closed around me; the seaweed was bound to my head.
Jon 2:6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was around me forever; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Jehovah my God.


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

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.

Lev 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh. Its blood is for the life of it. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any flesh. For the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.


You laugh this off ?

 

[LOki]

I was wondering--if we were not made of the same stuff as that which makes up the universe, what could we be made of, Angel wings?

Sounds like a good assumption than a "Humanly unknowable" truth.

You really think 3,500 years ago people would assume they were made up of igredients of the earth ?

It's only reasonable because what we know now just recently.

The funny thing, is you like do this thing while ignoring everything that the authors of the Bible got wrong--like the flat earth, the taxonomic classification of bats, and the gastrology of the hare, for examples. You are engaging in more Texas Sharpshooting.

The evidence in Genesis does not suggest that 3,500 years ago people assumed they were made up of of "the ingredients of the earth" (such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, etc. ....); Genesis explicitly says, "... the dust of the ground, ...".

The significance of "ingredients" you place there does not exist. The significance is ENTIRELY fabricated by you as a rationalization for your assertion that those ancient goat herders couldn't possibly know about what they wrote--hence "evidence" of this "God" thing of yours. But it's clear they wrote what they thought they knew ... dust, NOT "ingredients of the earth." Just dust and magic ... pure superstition.

 

[LOki]

My line of thinking is not just faith it is logical.

Faith and valid logic are irreconcilable. Faith and verifiable evidence are irreconcilable. Your "logic" is fundamentally fallacious, your "evidence" requires question-begging, as has been pointed out to you numerous times.

No matter how long i sit in a chair and stare at my lawn i know that lawn will not take care of itself,i have to get out of that chair and do something to make my lawn look nice.

That is both faith and logical thinking.

Without any fear you'll meet this request; demonstrate that it's both.

I have faith that my lawn will grow out of control if i do nothing.

If you have observed that "... [your] lawn will grow out of control if [you] do nothing," then you have evidence that your lawn will grow out of control if you do nothing; hence, it's NOT faith that you'd believe so. It's rational.

is logical to think that my lawn will grow out of control if i do nothing.

Based on the evidence, it is CERTAINLY logical to think so; hence, it's NOT faith that you'd believe so. It's rational.

See? I had nothing to fear.

 

[Montrovant]

Honesty test. The bible says ten times kinds bring forth after their own kind does science support this comment in the bible after billions of observations ?

Depends on what it means by kind, I would suppose! But generally speaking, yes. Of course, that doesn't really mean the bible is supported by science. I'm sure I could go pick some examples from any number of fiction books, or even probably other holy books, that are accurate.

Also, have you read all the other holy books and know that none of them say their gods are responsible for creation?

Once again,

Even if they do they would easily be refuted by science like the koran.

And you are laughing when the bible is supportyed by the evidence ?

How bout a little more.

Could man know these things when the bible was written and has science confirmed them.

Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.


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

Job 38:16 Have you gone to the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?


There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor . Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

Jon 2:5 Waters encompassed me, even to the soul; the depth closed around me; the seaweed was bound to my head.
Jon 2:6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was around me forever; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Jehovah my God.


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

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.

Lev 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh. Its blood is for the life of it. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any flesh. For the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.


You laugh this off ?

Yep, I'm still laughing!

I laugh at your statement that no other holy book takes credit for creation. Ridiculous!

I laugh at your statement that the bible is supported by science while other holy books are not. Not only have you not given examples of other holy books being unsupported, the examples you've given on how science supports the bible range from possibly valid to painfully stretching the meaning of scripture to try and validate your views.

I laugh at your seeming arrogance that you know the right answers while almost everyone else is wrong. I laugh at your seeming arrogance in assuming no other holy book could possibly take credit for creation; as though the idea of a creation myth is a somehow uniquely Christian one. I laugh at your seeming arrogance that your interpretations of scripture must be obvious to everyone.

 

[Youwerecreated]

clever for an 8th grader not a grandfather, unless the grandfather never got past 8th grade.

When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, creationists often reject the conclusions of the research[17] or its underlying scientific theories[18] or its methodology.[19] The rejection of scientific findings has sparked political and theological controversy.[7] Two offshoots of creationism—creation science and intelligent design—have been characterized as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[20] The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the universe.[21][22][23][24]

Well of course the scientific community has been hijacked by secularlists and atheist,and the ones that are not in either category have big egos,naturally they will not speak out against many of the theories that are based on wild imaginations and faulty conclusions. Their egos won't let them admit they were wrong. So the game continues but a day will come that they will be brought to their knees. You want to base your life and views on chance have at it. If you wish in one hand poop in the other which one will fill up first ? I don't accept chance as an explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life.

I love it when the ignorant rationalize.

Back at ya

 

[Youwerecreated]

Depends on what it means by kind, I would suppose! But generally speaking, yes. Of course, that doesn't really mean the bible is supported by science. I'm sure I could go pick some examples from any number of fiction books, or even probably other holy books, that are accurate.

Also, have you read all the other holy books and know that none of them say their gods are responsible for creation?

Once again,

Even if they do they would easily be refuted by science like the koran.

And you are laughing when the bible is supportyed by the evidence ?

How bout a little more.

Could man know these things when the bible was written and has science confirmed them.

Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.


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

Job 38:16 Have you gone to the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?


There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor . Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

Jon 2:5 Waters encompassed me, even to the soul; the depth closed around me; the seaweed was bound to my head.
Jon 2:6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was around me forever; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Jehovah my God.


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

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.

Lev 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh. Its blood is for the life of it. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any flesh. For the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.


You laugh this off ?

Yep, I'm still laughing!

I laugh at your statement that no other holy book takes credit for creation. Ridiculous!

I laugh at your statement that the bible is supported by science while other holy books are not. Not only have you not given examples of other holy books being unsupported, the examples you've given on how science supports the bible range from possibly valid to painfully stretching the meaning of scripture to try and validate your views.

I laugh at your seeming arrogance that you know the right answers while almost everyone else is wrong. I laugh at your seeming arrogance in assuming no other holy book could possibly take credit for creation; as though the idea of a creation myth is a somehow uniquely Christian one. I laugh at your seeming arrogance that your interpretations of scripture must be obvious to everyone.

You should be laughing at yourself.

Look at my signature.

 

[cbirch2]

I would like to do two things right here. 1. Disprove your notion of DNA, its more complicated then you understand. 2. Prove lineage among primates, at least to anyone that has a brain.

As viruses infect their hosts, especially proviruses, they can leave behind parts of their genome, called an endogenous retroviral sequence. If this happens to a gamete or a newly fertilized embryo, which is not uncommon, that retroviral insertion insertion would continue down their lineage.

If your great ancestors millions of generations ago were apes, we should be able to find a distinct pattern of endogenous retroviral sequences that have persisted through the entire million generation lineage of the family.

Again, i expect that you will claim this is only circumstantial evidence. It is only so to someone that doesnt understand biology.

How does your "we only have the information for us" theory compare to that little story.

And did god insert the viral genomes at the same place in monkeys and humans genome just to make it look like we were descended from the same species? And insert the types of mutations in just the right types of monkeys so that it fits perfectly with our anatomical and complete genetic timeline. As well as our timeline from radiometric dating.

 

[Montrovant]

Even if they do they would easily be refuted by science like the koran.

And you are laughing when the bible is supportyed by the evidence ?

How bout a little more.

Could man know these things when the bible was written and has science confirmed them.

Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.


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

Job 38:16 Have you gone to the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?


There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor . Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

Jon 2:5 Waters encompassed me, even to the soul; the depth closed around me; the seaweed was bound to my head.
Jon 2:6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was around me forever; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Jehovah my God.


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

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.

Lev 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh. Its blood is for the life of it. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any flesh. For the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.


You laugh this off ?

Yep, I'm still laughing!

I laugh at your statement that no other holy book takes credit for creation. Ridiculous!

I laugh at your statement that the bible is supported by science while other holy books are not. Not only have you not given examples of other holy books being unsupported, the examples you've given on how science supports the bible range from possibly valid to painfully stretching the meaning of scripture to try and validate your views.

I laugh at your seeming arrogance that you know the right answers while almost everyone else is wrong. I laugh at your seeming arrogance in assuming no other holy book could possibly take credit for creation; as though the idea of a creation myth is a somehow uniquely Christian one. I laugh at your seeming arrogance that your interpretations of scripture must be obvious to everyone.

You should be laughing at yourself.

Look at my signature.

Yes, let's look at your signature.....wow, who'd have guessed it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what we are currently discussing? It has nothing to do with your statements about other holy books or the supposed scientific verifiability of the bible.

Care to discuss those, or retract the statements, or will you (once again) simply ignore those things you cannot or will not discuss?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I would like to do two things right here. 1. Disprove your notion of DNA, its more complicated then you understand. 2. Prove lineage among primates, at least to anyone that has a brain.

As viruses infect their hosts, especially proviruses, they can leave behind parts of their genome, called an endogenous retroviral sequence. If this happens to a gamete or a newly fertilized embryo, which is not uncommon, that retroviral insertion insertion would continue down their lineage.

If your great ancestors millions of generations ago were apes, we should be able to find a distinct pattern of endogenous retroviral sequences that have persisted through the entire million generation lineage of the family.

Again, i expect that you will claim this is only circumstantial evidence. It is only so to someone that doesnt understand biology.

How does your "we only have the information for us" theory compare to that little story.

And did god insert the viral genomes at the same place in monkeys and humans genome just to make it look like we were descended from the same species? And insert the types of mutations in just the right types of monkeys so that it fits perfectly with our anatomical and complete genetic timeline. As well as our timeline from radiometric dating.

Wrong,if the creator used the same elements with similar design that would explain the DNA similarity seen. That is exactly what the creator did. But what was amazing with the same biological similarity he was able to produce vastly different information.

But how true that statement is. You can't prove any organism has information to produce anything other then what they are. That is where your magical, and wild explanation has to come in which you cannot prove.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yep, I'm still laughing!

I laugh at your statement that no other holy book takes credit for creation. Ridiculous!

I laugh at your statement that the bible is supported by science while other holy books are not. Not only have you not given examples of other holy books being unsupported, the examples you've given on how science supports the bible range from possibly valid to painfully stretching the meaning of scripture to try and validate your views.

I laugh at your seeming arrogance that you know the right answers while almost everyone else is wrong. I laugh at your seeming arrogance in assuming no other holy book could possibly take credit for creation; as though the idea of a creation myth is a somehow uniquely Christian one. I laugh at your seeming arrogance that your interpretations of scripture must be obvious to everyone.

You should be laughing at yourself.

Look at my signature.

Yes, let's look at your signature.....wow, who'd have guessed it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what we are currently discussing? It has nothing to do with your statements about other holy books or the supposed scientific verifiability of the bible.

Care to discuss those, or retract the statements, or will you (once again) simply ignore those things you cannot or will not discuss?

The thing is you had a chance to point out flaws and could not do it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I would like to do two things right here. 1. Disprove your notion of DNA, its more complicated then you understand. 2. Prove lineage among primates, at least to anyone that has a brain.

As viruses infect their hosts, especially proviruses, they can leave behind parts of their genome, called an endogenous retroviral sequence. If this happens to a gamete or a newly fertilized embryo, which is not uncommon, that retroviral insertion insertion would continue down their lineage.

If your great ancestors millions of generations ago were apes, we should be able to find a distinct pattern of endogenous retroviral sequences that have persisted through the entire million generation lineage of the family.

Again, i expect that you will claim this is only circumstantial evidence. It is only so to someone that doesnt understand biology.

How does your "we only have the information for us" theory compare to that little story.

And did god insert the viral genomes at the same place in monkeys and humans genome just to make it look like we were descended from the same species? And insert the types of mutations in just the right types of monkeys so that it fits perfectly with our anatomical and complete genetic timeline. As well as our timeline from radiometric dating.

No God did not use mutations to create,he used them to hand down his punishment for sin which is death.

 

[LOki]

Wrong,if the creator ...

What "Creator"?

... used the same elements with similar design that would explain the DNA similarity seen.

It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from "off the shelf." Such a being certainly would not say, put finger bones in the fins of dolphins when sharks surely have no "design" requirement for them; or put tissues in the light path to light receptors of eyes, when it's evident that such a counter-intuitive "design" is not necessary.

And to what purpose (for the designer) is all the superfluous DNA? All the stuff that encodes nothing? And remember, just because something (eventually) has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all.

It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from the shelf.

And let's not forget that the DNA in question is demonstrably not native to the ...ahem... "design."

Before you object to explaining these elements of "design," remember that its the evidence of the mechanism or specific process of design that identifies "design" in the absence of evidence for this "Designer" of yours. If you have no valid verifiable evidence of either your "Designer" or His "design," then you have no argument for design.

That is exactly what the creator did.

What "Creator"?

But what was amazing with the same biological similarity he was able to produce vastly different information.

Why is this "amazing"? Why would it be less "amazing" if "the same biological similarity he was able to produce vastly different information," just without your Tooth-Fairy's involvement.

But how true that statement is. You can't prove any organism has information to produce anything other then what they are.

So? You seem to repeat this like it's an important refutation of what the Theory of Evolution--what Natural Selection--proposes. What's up with that? ANSWER

How many times will I have to repeat the actual fact of reality that the theory you're so opposed to says nothing different?

That is where your magical, and wild explanation has to come in which you cannot prove.

We don't have to prove that parent organisms of the same species always produce offspring of the same species.

It is, however, a logical necessity of the Theory of Biblical Creationism that parent organisms must have, at various points, magically given rise to progeny of a different species. This is why you are obligated to disingenuously use the meaningless term "kind" when describing your fatuous Creationist taxonomy (Cats are all the same "kind" of animal ... except when it's inconvenient to say that the term means "species"; then cats are not all the same "kind" of animal). Otherwise, Creationists have no explanation for the diversity of species ... it's INEXPLICABLE!

The Theory of Evolution actually REQUIRES parent organisms of the same species to produce offspring of the same species. Get it into your retarded head, and stop repeating your misinformation as if you now don't know better.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wrong,if the creator ...

What "Creator"?

... used the same elements with similar design that would explain the DNA similarity seen.

It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from "off the shelf." Such a being certainly would not say, put finger bones in the fins of dolphins when sharks surely have no "design" requirement for them; or put tissues in the light path to light receptors of eyes, when it's evident that such a counter-intuitive "design" is not necessary.

And to what purpose (for the designer) is all the superfluous DNA? All the stuff that encodes nothing? And remember, just because something (eventually) has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all.

It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from the shelf.

And let's not forget that the DNA in question is demonstrably not native to the ...ahem... "design."

Before you object to explaining these elements of "design," remember that its the evidence of the mechanism or specific process of design that identifies "design" in the absence of evidence for this "Designer" of yours. If you have no valid verifiable evidence of either your "Designer" or His "design," then you have no argument for design.

What "Creator"?

Why is this "amazing"? Why would it be less "amazing" if "the same biological similarity he was able to produce vastly different information," just without your Tooth-Fairy's involvement.

But how true that statement is. You can't prove any organism has information to produce anything other then what they are.

So? You seem to repeat this like it's an important refutation of what the Theory of Evolution--what Natural Selection--proposes. What's up with that? ANSWER

How many times will I have to repeat the actual fact of reality that the theory you're so opposed to says nothing different?

That is where your magical, and wild explanation has to come in which you cannot prove.

We don't have to prove that parent organisms of the same species always produce offspring of the same species.

It is, however, a logical necessity of the Theory of Biblical Creationism that parent organisms must have, at various points, magically given rise to progeny of a different species. This is why you are obligated to disingenuously use the meaningless term "kind" when describing your fatuous Creationist taxonomy (Cats are all the same "kind" of animal ... except when it's inconvenient to say that the term means "species"; then cats are not all the same "kind" of animal). Otherwise, Creationists have no explanation for the diversity of species ... it's INEXPLICABLE!

The Theory of Evolution actually REQUIRES parent organisms of the same species to produce offspring of the same species. Get it into your retarded head, and stop repeating your misinformation as if you now don't know better.

Either way you look at it there is a creator either God the Almighty or your natural process. Which ever it is shows intelligence to create what we see.

 

[LOki]

Wrong,if the creator ...

What "Creator"?

It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from "off the shelf." Such a being certainly would not say, put finger bones in the fins of dolphins when sharks surely have no "design" requirement for them; or put tissues in the light path to light receptors of eyes, when it's evident that such a counter-intuitive "design" is not necessary.

And to what purpose (for the designer) is all the superfluous DNA? All the stuff that encodes nothing? And remember, just because something (eventually) has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all.

It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from the shelf.

And let's not forget that the DNA in question is demonstrably not native to the ...ahem... "design."

Before you object to explaining these elements of "design," remember that its the evidence of the mechanism or specific process of design that identifies "design" in the absence of evidence for this "Designer" of yours. If you have no valid verifiable evidence of either your "Designer" or His "design," then you have no argument for design.

What "Creator"?

Why is this "amazing"? Why would it be less "amazing" if "the same biological similarity he was able to produce vastly different information," just without your Tooth-Fairy's involvement.

So? You seem to repeat this like it's an important refutation of what the Theory of Evolution--what Natural Selection--proposes. What's up with that? ANSWER

How many times will I have to repeat the actual fact of reality that the theory you're so opposed to says nothing different?

That is where your magical, and wild explanation has to come in which you cannot prove.

We don't have to prove that parent organisms of the same species always produce offspring of the same species.

It is, however, a logical necessity of the Theory of Biblical Creationism that parent organisms must have, at various points, magically given rise to progeny of a different species. This is why you are obligated to disingenuously use the meaningless term "kind" when describing your fatuous Creationist taxonomy (Cats are all the same "kind" of animal ... except when it's inconvenient to say that the term means "species"; then cats are not all the same "kind" of animal). Otherwise, Creationists have no explanation for the diversity of species ... it's INEXPLICABLE!

The Theory of Evolution actually REQUIRES parent organisms of the same species to produce offspring of the same species. Get it into your retarded head, and stop repeating your misinformation as if you now don't know better.

Either way you look at it there is a creator either God the Almighty or your natural process.

"Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Which ever it is shows intelligence to create what we see.

Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

 

[Montrovant]

You should be laughing at yourself.

Look at my signature.

Yes, let's look at your signature.....wow, who'd have guessed it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what we are currently discussing? It has nothing to do with your statements about other holy books or the supposed scientific verifiability of the bible.

Care to discuss those, or retract the statements, or will you (once again) simply ignore those things you cannot or will not discuss?

The thing is you had a chance to point out flaws and could not do it.

WTF are you talking about? Had a chance to point out flaws in what? You jump around from point to point wildly, with little or no relation to the current discussion. Maybe you should consider responding less frequently, or to fewer people, if you are unable to stay on track with the person you are responding to.

 

[Montrovant]

Either way you look at it there is a creator either God the Almighty or your natural process. Which ever it is shows intelligence to create what we see.

What if I think there is a different creator? What if I think there were multiple creators?

The assumption that Christianity or atheism are the only possible answers is both ridiculous and arrogant, especially combined with the strong impression you give that the only possibilities are YOUR version of Christianity and atheism.