Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Refuting the Above Superstitious Retard
I have already addressed this specifically, the first time you presented it. "Creation Science" is not science.

You were wrong then too.

Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

What's up with that?

Empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.

 

[cbirch2]

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

1. You clearly did not understand my argument, which has nothing to do with random mutations, and everything to do with viral infections.
2. Mutations are caused by sin? Wow. Do we live in the 17th century? Now i understand why we cant have a coherent debate, you dont even understand fundamentals. Sin causes mutation...wow....So the very act of DNA replication is sin, because errors in replication inevitably occur each time.

Yes the loss of genetic data causes aging and death,just an opinion can't prove it but that is what i think.

God struck people with plagues.

Gen 12:17 And Jehovah plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife.

Exo 9:14 For I am going to send at this time all My plagues upon your heart, and upon your servants, and upon your people, so that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.
Exo 9:15 For now I will stretch out My hand, that I may strike you and your people with plagues, and you shall be cut off from the earth.


Lev 26:21 And if you walk contrary to Me, and will not listen to Me, I will bring seven times more plagues on you according to your sins.

Deu 28:59 then Jehovah will make your plagues remarkable, and the plagues of your seed great and persistent plagues; with evil and long-lasting sicknesses.

Deu 29:22 so that the generation to come of your sons that shall rise up after you, and the stranger that shall come from a far land, shall say (when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses which Jehovah has laid on it)

Jer 49:17 Also Edom shall be a ruin. Everyone who goes by it shall be amazed and shall hiss at all its plagues.

Jer 50:13 Because of the wrath of Jehovah it shall not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly a waste. Everyone who goes by Babylon shall be amazed and hiss at all her plagues.

Rev 15:1 And I saw another sign in Heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels with the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.

Rev 15:8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from His authority. And no one was able to enter into the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed.

Rev 22:18 For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book.


How do you think these come upon us ? Mutations and bacteria.

All plagues are bacteria or virus, maybe even a fungus or protist. But a plague caused by a mutation? That is something that doesnt happen.

And again, dont quote the bible and then tell me to explain it. I dont quote harry potter and tell you to disprove magic.

And your dancing around the question. How do you explain the insertions of viral genomes on that chart, and their hierarchy? God purposely inserted a viral genomes in humans that are a subset of ones for more primitive primates, and did so for every fossil in between ape and man in a perfect hierarchy?

Wow.

 

[daws101]

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

that was a retorical statement. your answer showcases your ignorance.

 

[daws101]

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.

so sin is a Disease? most mutations do not kill.
death is a punishment from god...odd, everything dies.

 

[daws101]

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.

Not arrogance,just confidence that there is only one creator and his name is YAHWEH.

are you Jewish or Israeli? that's the name they gave to god....if your anything else you're plagiarizing.

 

[daws101]

If man knew how God did everything and had all the answers,there would be no need for God.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo]XTC-Dear God - YouTube[/ame]

nuff said!

 

[daws101]

In case you don't understand : the purpose of quoting someone else's post is to respond to it. It is not used to respond to a different poster. When you quote my post, and respond to someone else, it makes no sense!

Everything in the bible cannot be verified scientifically, and there are many things for which there is no evidence. Just because there are some things in it that are accurate does not mean all of it is accurate; especially when there are many things in it which go against observable reality.

If you can't even understand that quoting someone indicates you are responding to them, it seems unlikely you can understand the complexities of evolution or cosmology.

Oh please don't be rediculous. Maybe i did quote you and this other poster.

By the way i did quote you at post #2332

Where i pointed out what you believe in my signature and because you were laughing at sayings in the bible that has been confirmed by evidence.

Post #2334. You did not quote me and some other poster to whom you were responding, you quoted only me (and yourself).

Your signature is a silly oversimplification, but I'm sure you know that.

You didn't just say some things in the bible can be confirmed by science, you said the bible can be confirmed by science. That is obviously ridiculous. Walking on water, a serpent talking, water into wine, living inside a whale, etc. etc. etc....there are many things in the bible that cannot be confirmed by science and often go against the observed rules of the natural world. You believe they are possible through god, and that is fine; when you claim they are confirmed by science, you are lying.

If I pull some quotes from other holy books of things that can be confirmed by science, does that make those books confirmed by science?

Of course, many of the scripture quotes you bring up as being confirmed by science are nothing of the sort, as has been pointed out to you by many posters. At best, your interpretation of those quotes conforms with scientific knowledge. That interpretation is neither universally held nor, in many cases, clear to anyone who does not already agree with you. Some of the connections you make strain the bonds of credulity to breaking.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and shoehorn this book of faith into modern scientific knowledge.

I think I do, fundamentalists like many "believers" have somehow deluded themselves in to the idea that our species is Superior and separate from all others on this planet.
that's a lie.

 

[daws101]

If man knew how God did everything and had all the answers,there would be no need for God.

So what? There's apparently no need for this "God" of yours, regardless.

Some day I think you will eat those words.

ahhh...you mean wish or believe. think does not enter in,

 

[LOki]

You have given no valid logic and evidence that supports that valid logic, ...

Do you have ANY IDEA what the terms you use mean to folks other than you and you imaginary friends?

That contrtadicts my valid logic and evidence.

The INVALIDITY of your "valid logic and evidence" has been thoroughly and unambiguously demonstrated ... repeatedly.

You have also not given valid evidence to support your valid logic concerning what you believe.

I cetrtainly have, and despite the CLEAR OPPORTUNITY you have had to do so, you simply HAVE NOT demonstrated that ANY of the logic or evidence I've brought to support my beliefs is invalid; you just baselessly deny it's validity by ignoring it.

You were wrong then too.

Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

What's up with that?

What evidence have you given ?

Your self-contradictory and self-indicting posting.

 

[LOki]

Why do scientist believe in creation if there is no evidence for it ?

Who cares? The answer to that question does not invalidate the assertion that "Creation Science" is not science.

Besides, there's this to consider.

 

[daws101]

Why do scientist believe in creation if there is no evidence for it ?

Why Do Smart People Believe Weird Things?



Carl Sagan, in his last book Demon-Haunted World, expressed his growing concern in the growth of belief in the paranormal such as astrology, witchcraft, spiritualism, Loc Ness Monster, Bigfoot, etc. Many academics bemoan the fact that Americans, including their students, seem unable to distinguish science from pseudoscience, history from pseudohistory, or sense from nonsense: “The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations of pseudo-science and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance” (25-26). Sagan laments, “If we teach only the findings and products of science—no matter how useful and even inspiring they may be—without communicating its critical method, how can the average person possibly distinguish science from pseudoscience?” (21). Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things may offer some insights into understanding why humans believe the things they do.



More than any other reason, people believe what they want to, despite evidence to the contrary. Shermer elaborates with four explanatory reasons these beliefs persist:

immediate gratification
simplicity
morality and meaning
hope springs eternal


Why do these irrational beliefs persist even among many college students despite an emphasis on critical thinking in the classroom? In other words, why do smart people believe weird things?

Intelligence doesn’t seem to necessarily shape one’s beliefs.
Often smart people’s intelligence is domain specific.
Smart people are not necessarily less prejudiced and authoritarian, but educated people are less so. Unfortunately students today are often taught what to think but not how to think. (“Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking” (Sagan 25).
Believers tend to be high in external locus of control, whereas skeptics tend to be high in internal locus of control. People with high external locus of control believe that circumstances are beyond their control, i.e. things just happen. Those with a high internal locus of control tend to believe they make things happen. So the former tend to be more superstitious and believe in ESP, precognition, witchcraft, spiritualism, etc.
Smart people are better at defending beliefs arrived at for non-smart reasons since even they are corrupted by intellectual attribution bias and confirmation bias that we all suffer from. Intellectual attribution bias occurs when we identify environmental or personality causes in our own favor, that is we take credit for our good actions and blame a situation for our bad ones.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek or interpret evidence favorable to already existing beliefs and to ignore or reinterpret evidence unfavorable to already existing beliefs. Thus we see people convinced of weird things such as Area 51, Bible codes, alien abductions, Loch Ness and Sasquatch monsters, Atlantis and Lemuria, etc., despite evidence to the contrary.

Why Do Smart People Believe Weird Things

 

[LOki]

You were wrong then too.

Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

What's up with that?

Your evidence for macro-evolution is valid logic ?

The validity of macro-evolution is supported by the application of valid logic to the verifiable evidence.

what evidence is this valid logic based on ?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but here's my best shot at an answer: That "X" =/= "not X".

 

[LOki]

you were wrong then too.

yet you cannot demonstrate i was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

What's up with that?

empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.

Ring Species you impenetrable dumbass!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]RING-FUCKING-SPECIES[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

1. You clearly did not understand my argument, which has nothing to do with random mutations, and everything to do with viral infections.
2. Mutations are caused by sin? Wow. Do we live in the 17th century? Now i understand why we cant have a coherent debate, you dont even understand fundamentals. Sin causes mutation...wow....So the very act of DNA replication is sin, because errors in replication inevitably occur each time.

Yes the loss of genetic data causes aging and death,just an opinion can't prove it but that is what i think.

God struck people with plagues.

Gen 12:17 And Jehovah plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife.

Exo 9:14 For I am going to send at this time all My plagues upon your heart, and upon your servants, and upon your people, so that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.
Exo 9:15 For now I will stretch out My hand, that I may strike you and your people with plagues, and you shall be cut off from the earth.


Lev 26:21 And if you walk contrary to Me, and will not listen to Me, I will bring seven times more plagues on you according to your sins.

Deu 28:59 then Jehovah will make your plagues remarkable, and the plagues of your seed great and persistent plagues; with evil and long-lasting sicknesses.

Deu 29:22 so that the generation to come of your sons that shall rise up after you, and the stranger that shall come from a far land, shall say (when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses which Jehovah has laid on it)

Jer 49:17 Also Edom shall be a ruin. Everyone who goes by it shall be amazed and shall hiss at all its plagues.

Jer 50:13 Because of the wrath of Jehovah it shall not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly a waste. Everyone who goes by Babylon shall be amazed and hiss at all her plagues.

Rev 15:1 And I saw another sign in Heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels with the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.

Rev 15:8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from His authority. And no one was able to enter into the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed.

Rev 22:18 For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book.


How do you think these come upon us ? Mutations and bacteria.

All plagues are bacteria or virus, maybe even a fungus or protist. But a plague caused by a mutation? That is something that doesnt happen.

And again, dont quote the bible and then tell me to explain it. I dont quote harry potter and tell you to disprove magic.

And your dancing around the question. How do you explain the insertions of viral genomes on that chart, and their hierarchy? God purposely inserted a viral genomes in humans that are a subset of ones for more primitive primates, and did so for every fossil in between ape and man in a perfect hierarchy?

Wow.

Mutations can cause disease and genetic disorders.

Pseudogenes most likely are the result of degradation. They have lost their original created function.



Are Pseudogenes ‘Shared Mistakes’ Between Primate Genomes?


by John Woodmorappe on

December 1, 2000


Technical



author-john-woodmorappe
dna
human-genome
journal-of-creation
junk-dna
pseudogenes




Featured In

Summary



‘Given a sufficient lack of comprehension, anything (and that includes a quartet of Mozart) can be declared to be junk. The junk DNA concept has exercised such a hold over a large part of the community of molecular biologists …(emphasis in original).’ – Zuckerkandl and Henning1

‘DNA not known to be coding for proteins or functional RNAs, especially pseudogenes, are now at times referred to in publications simply as nonfunctional DNA, as though their nonfunctionality were an established fact.’ – Zuckerkandl, Latter and Jurka2

Rest of article.

Are Pseudogenes

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Not arrogance,just confidence that there is only one creator and his name is YAHWEH.

are you Jewish or Israeli? that's the name they gave to god....if your anything else you're plagiarizing.

No but YAHWEH is Jesus.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh please don't be rediculous. Maybe i did quote you and this other poster.

By the way i did quote you at post #2332

Where i pointed out what you believe in my signature and because you were laughing at sayings in the bible that has been confirmed by evidence.

Post #2334. You did not quote me and some other poster to whom you were responding, you quoted only me (and yourself).

Your signature is a silly oversimplification, but I'm sure you know that.

You didn't just say some things in the bible can be confirmed by science, you said the bible can be confirmed by science. That is obviously ridiculous. Walking on water, a serpent talking, water into wine, living inside a whale, etc. etc. etc....there are many things in the bible that cannot be confirmed by science and often go against the observed rules of the natural world. You believe they are possible through god, and that is fine; when you claim they are confirmed by science, you are lying.

If I pull some quotes from other holy books of things that can be confirmed by science, does that make those books confirmed by science?

Of course, many of the scripture quotes you bring up as being confirmed by science are nothing of the sort, as has been pointed out to you by many posters. At best, your interpretation of those quotes conforms with scientific knowledge. That interpretation is neither universally held nor, in many cases, clear to anyone who does not already agree with you. Some of the connections you make strain the bonds of credulity to breaking.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and shoehorn this book of faith into modern scientific knowledge.

I think I do, fundamentalists like many "believers" have somehow deluded themselves in to the idea that our species is Superior and separate from all others on this planet.
that's a lie.

We are at the top of the food chain.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why do scientist believe in creation if there is no evidence for it ?

Why Do Smart People Believe Weird Things?



Carl Sagan, in his last book Demon-Haunted World, expressed his growing concern in the growth of belief in the paranormal such as astrology, witchcraft, spiritualism, Loc Ness Monster, Bigfoot, etc. Many academics bemoan the fact that Americans, including their students, seem unable to distinguish science from pseudoscience, history from pseudohistory, or sense from nonsense: “The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations of pseudo-science and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance” (25-26). Sagan laments, “If we teach only the findings and products of science—no matter how useful and even inspiring they may be—without communicating its critical method, how can the average person possibly distinguish science from pseudoscience?” (21). Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things may offer some insights into understanding why humans believe the things they do.



More than any other reason, people believe what they want to, despite evidence to the contrary. Shermer elaborates with four explanatory reasons these beliefs persist:

immediate gratification
simplicity
morality and meaning
hope springs eternal


Why do these irrational beliefs persist even among many college students despite an emphasis on critical thinking in the classroom? In other words, why do smart people believe weird things?

Intelligence doesn’t seem to necessarily shape one’s beliefs.
Often smart people’s intelligence is domain specific.
Smart people are not necessarily less prejudiced and authoritarian, but educated people are less so. Unfortunately students today are often taught what to think but not how to think. (“Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking” (Sagan 25).
Believers tend to be high in external locus of control, whereas skeptics tend to be high in internal locus of control. People with high external locus of control believe that circumstances are beyond their control, i.e. things just happen. Those with a high internal locus of control tend to believe they make things happen. So the former tend to be more superstitious and believe in ESP, precognition, witchcraft, spiritualism, etc.
Smart people are better at defending beliefs arrived at for non-smart reasons since even they are corrupted by intellectual attribution bias and confirmation bias that we all suffer from. Intellectual attribution bias occurs when we identify environmental or personality causes in our own favor, that is we take credit for our good actions and blame a situation for our bad ones.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek or interpret evidence favorable to already existing beliefs and to ignore or reinterpret evidence unfavorable to already existing beliefs. Thus we see people convinced of weird things such as Area 51, Bible codes, alien abductions, Loch Ness and Sasquatch monsters, Atlantis and Lemuria, etc., despite evidence to the contrary.

Why Do Smart People Believe Weird Things

That is why i wonder why so many educated believe in macro-evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why do scientist believe in creation if there is no evidence for it ?

Who cares? The answer to that question does not invalidate the assertion that "Creation Science" is not science.

Besides, there's this to consider.

It does matter dumbass.

 

[Youwerecreated]

yet you cannot demonstrate i was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

What's up with that?

empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.

Ring Species you impenetrable dumbass!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]RING-FUCKING-SPECIES[/ame]

What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ? typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.

 

[LOki]

empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.

Ring Species you impenetrable dumbass!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]RING-FUCKING-SPECIES[/ame]

What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ? typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.

Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.

"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."
LINK

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."
LINK

"macroevolution The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."
LINK

"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."
LINK

"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."

[Macroevolution] is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".

"mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."​

Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.