Creationists

[ilia25]

Faith is pretty much required for any thing you believe that you were not present to witness

True -- but real scientists (and atheists) do not believe in anything, even in the things they were present to witness!

When you think that a dropped pencil will fall down, it is not a faith -- it is merely an assumption based on your previous experience. But as a scientist, you must allow a possibility -- however negligible -- that the next time a dropped pencil will fly up.

Same with the Theory of Evolution, or any scientific theory. There are two requirements that any scientific theory must satisfy, and they differentiate a scientific theory from faith:
1) A scientific theory cannot be completely proven. Meaning there is always a possibility that a theory of evolution, or Newton's laws of motion will turn out to be wrong.
2) A scientific theory can be completely and utterly disproved. If tomorrow some paleontologist will find human bones among Cretaceous fossils, that will be the end of Theory of Evolution.

So an atheist, or a scientist, -- they do not believe in anything. They just 99.99999....9999% sure about some things. Including the Theory of Evolution. Or that Christian God is a fairy tale, however inspiring or influencing.

 

[LOki]

Same old rhetoric nothing of substance.

Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.

That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.

Really? You'd think that you would substantiate such an accusation if it had any validity.

Well, not you ... you're one of the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards.

 

[LOki]

UR has come to the same conclusion I have.

Loki is a bad writer, besides being redundant. He doesn't say anything, but he sure loves to string those words together. He thinks people will read his garbage and think he's REALLY important and smart.

And apparently it worked with you.

koshergrl, this myth you've created is just hilarious. It is only in your imagination that I think of myself the way you say I do.

It's really evidence that YOU think of me the way you say I think of myself.

 

[LOki]

That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.

He has just kicked your arse every which way but sideways, and instead of skulking off and licking your wounds, you just write inane posts to your peanut gallery.

Your like-minded fool patting you on the back is not an indication that you are right, only that you are both just as misinformed/dumb/moronic/brain washed as the rest of them...

Loki is all smoke and mirrors my friend. He likes to call ID Theorists superstitious and believing in fairytales but methinks he is merely projecting. It is a joke to me the tiny straws evolutionists get excited about. They point to the "whale" of "evidence" to support evolution but act like giddy school girls when they "think" they've found a gnat that supports their theory... "think" being the operative word. This is what I think about Loki's so called transitional evidence...

From CSC: In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”13 Nature science writer Henry Gee wrote in 1999 that “no fossil is buried with its birth certificate.” When we call new fossil discoveries “missing links,” it is “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” Gee concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”14

This is the source material from which Gee's quote was mined:

The conventional portrait of human evolution — and, indeed, of the history of life — tends to be one of lines of ancestors and descendants. We concentrate on the events leading to modern humanity, ignoring or playing down the evolution of other animals: we prune away all branches in the tree of life except the one leading to ourselves. The result, inevitably, is a tale of progressive improvement, culminating in modern humanity. From our privileged vantage point in the present day, we look back at human ancestry and pick out the features in fossil hominids that we see in ourselves — a bigger brain, an upright stance, the use of tools, and so on. Naturally, we arrange fossil hominids in a series according to their resemblance to the human state. Homo erectus, with its humanlike, upright stance and big brain, will be closer to us than Ardipithecus ramidus or Australopithecus afarensis, which had smaller brains and more apelike features.

Because we see evolution in terms of a linear chain of ancestry and descent, we tend to ignore the possibility that some of these ancestors might have been side branches instead — collateral cousins, rather than direct ancestors. The conventional, linear view easily becomes a story in which the features of humanity are acquired in a sequence that can be discerned retrospectively — first an upright stance, then a bigger brain, then the invention of toolmaking, and so on, with ourselves as the inevitable consequence.

New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps.

It turns out that Gee was working towards a discussion of the improvements in our understanding due to cladistics.

 

[LOki]

Yes, evolution is based on faith and the flowery ability to make up stories that "sound" scientific. It is extrapolation gone wild.

Nope. This is just superstition claiming science is no more valid than itself.

Faith is pretty much required for any thing you believe that you were not present to witness, so yes, the majority of the theory of evolution is based on faith. We could argue there is just as much evidence for God as there is the god NS based on the "evidence" and our faith.

Nope. This is just superstition again claiming science is no more valid than itself.

Natural selection acting on random mutations... since it is so amazing and common, it shouldn't be too hard to find one living example right?

Right.

I mean out of the billions of random mutations, NS whittled them down to the traits we see now, right. Evolutionists are fond of pointing to negative mutations which occur at a single locus, but let's hear some examples of "positive" modern day mutations that occur at a single loki, I mean locus, in multi-cell species. There should be thousands of them... I'm waiting...

Youwerecreated asked, and was rewarded numerous times already. If you really think he wasn't, just ask for a link ... whereas you asshats can't be bothered, you'll discover that I can come through.
PREDICTION: The superstitious intellectually dishonest creationist retards--who are so rabidly certain they can stump me or any sensible person with their disingenuous challenges, are so much more interested in claiming that I didn't meet their dumb challenge than seeing links that describe "examples of "positive" modern day mutations"--won't ask for links, but instead claim I haven't met their dumbass challenge.

 

[LOki]

Faith is pretty much required for any thing you believe that you were not present to witness

True -- but real scientists (and atheists) do not believe in anything, even in the things they were present to witness!

Oh, I'm pretty sure this isn't true. For instance, real scientists believe that their observations, measurements, and conclusions are subject to various errors.

When you think that a dropped pencil will fall down, it is not a faith -- it is merely an assumption based on your previous experience. But as a scientist, you must allow a possibility -- however negligible -- that the next time a dropped pencil will fly up.

Same with the Theory of Evolution, or any scientific theory. There are two requirements that any scientific theory must satisfy, and they differentiate a scientific theory from faith:
1) A scientific theory cannot be completely proven. Meaning there is always a possibility that a theory of evolution, or Newton's laws of motion will turn out to be wrong.
2) A scientific theory can be completely and utterly disproved. If tomorrow some paleontologist will find human bones among Cretaceous fossils, that will be the end of Theory of Evolution.

So an atheist, or a scientist, -- they do not believe in anything. They just 99.99999....9999% sure about some things. Including the Theory of Evolution. Or that Christian God is a fairy tale, however inspiring or influencing.

Yes. It seems to me that you are not speaking to "belief," rather you are speaking to "certainty"; scientists do not make claims of unqualified or unconditional certainty--because real scientists believe that their observations, measurements, and conclusions are subject to various errors.

Creationists (who claim unconditional certainty, validated only by denial of reality and logical fallacy) attempt to capitalize on this clearly understood lack of absolute certainty to make the assertion that scientific conclusions are entirely baseless in any verifiable evidence and/or valid logic--that because scientists don't claim unconditional certainty about EVERYTHING, they cannot validly claim ANY amount of certainty about ANYTHING. This candid admission of scientists (that their observations, measurements, and conclusions are subject to various errors) however, speaks to an integrity of intellectual honesty that Creationists--"Christian" Creationists in particular--find impossible to even contemplate, let alone embrace.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do blueprints have symbols giving instructions for structures ?

YES! Yes they do!

Go on dumbass! I've opened the door wide for you. Go on and assert your obvious logical fallacy--your incredible and unbelievable dumb; and expose yourself once again to be the retard we all know you are! I know you're just dying to do it! Please hurry!

You can't see what you just adfmitted to ?

I will not respond until you in your own words provide answers to my questions and give the evidence to support your assertions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

another dodge!
but to answer your question, religion it's self gave me the first hints about why there is no god.

Not a dodge.

I will admit I am no fan of religion I don't believe God is either by what he says about it in the bible,especially what he says in the book of Revelations.

Abraham did not need an organized religion to have a relationship with the Almighty.

nice contradiction you are no fan of religion but you do belong to one.
Abraham: Joseph Blenkinsopp said that the Genesis story of Abraham has not been transmitted by oral traditions, but from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE.[10] He said that it served to assure the Israelites in exile that despite the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Davidic kingship, Yahweh's dealings with their ancestors provided a historical foundation on which hope for the future could be built.[11] Abraham's association with Mamre and Hebron, in the south, in the territory of Jerusalem and Judah, suggests that this region was the original home of his cult

I am not a member of an organized religion that doctrine drives the meetings. Maybe I should have been clearer what organized religion is and no Abraham did not gather to worship the Almighty YAHWEH.

The main purpose of the temple was for sacrifice and prayer. The temples became corrupt that is why Jesus condemed what was going on in the temple and That is why ultimately God allowed the destruction of both temples. Because what they taught and did in the temples.

Mat 21:13 And He said to them, It is written, "My house shall be called the house of prayer"; but you have made it a den of thieves.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Same old rhetoric nothing of substance.

Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.

That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.

Agreed ,so many words and nothing of substance, But that is typical of Idelogues on that side.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Same old rhetoric nothing of substance.

Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.

That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.

He has just kicked your arse every which way but sideways, and instead of skulking off and licking your wounds, you just write inane posts to your peanut gallery.

Your like-minded fool patting you on the back is not an indication that you are right, only that you are both just as misinformed/dumb/moronic/brain washed as the rest of them...

You should lay off of what that Kangaroo is drinking.

 

[Youwerecreated]

UR has come to the same conclusion I have.

Loki is a bad writer, besides being redundant. He doesn't say anything, but he sure loves to string those words together. He thinks people will read his garbage and think he's REALLY important and smart.

And apparently it worked with you.

Dunno about the importance. But he is smart (even if he is wrong about his stance on guns ). As stated, he is kicking these guys butts. I had to step away from this thread for a few weeks, I was cringing so much with embarassment for UR and YWC.

Translated ,you stuck your fingers in your ears because you couldn't handle the truth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes, evolution is based on faith and the flowery ability to make up stories that "sound" scientific. It is extrapolation gone wild.

Nope. This is just superstition claiming science is no more valid than itself.

Faith is pretty much required for any thing you believe that you were not present to witness, so yes, the majority of the theory of evolution is based on faith. We could argue there is just as much evidence for God as there is the god NS based on the "evidence" and our faith.

Nope. This is just superstition again claiming science is no more valid than itself.

Natural selection acting on random mutations... since it is so amazing and common, it shouldn't be too hard to find one living example right?

Right.

I mean out of the billions of random mutations, NS whittled them down to the traits we see now, right. Evolutionists are fond of pointing to negative mutations which occur at a single locus, but let's hear some examples of "positive" modern day mutations that occur at a single loki, I mean locus, in multi-cell species. There should be thousands of them... I'm waiting...

Youwerecreated asked, and was rewarded numerous times already. If you really think he wasn't, just ask for a link ... whereas you asshats can't be bothered, you'll discover that I can come through.
PREDICTION: The superstitious intellectually dishonest creationist retards--who are so rabidly certain they can stump me or any sensible person with their disingenuous challenges, are so much more interested in claiming that I didn't meet their dumb challenge than seeing links that describe "examples of "positive" modern day mutations"--won't ask for links, but instead claim I haven't met their dumbass challenge.

 

[LOki]

Do blueprints have symbols giving instructions for structures ?

YES! Yes they do!

Go on dumbass! I've opened the door wide for you. Go on and assert your obvious logical fallacy--your incredible and unbelievable dumb; and expose yourself once again to be the retard we all know you are! I know you're just dying to do it! Please hurry!

You can't see what you just adfmitted to ?

YES! Yes I can! And I am pretty certain that it's nothing at all what you think I've admitted to. So, your golden opportunity is still present! I've opened the door wide for you. Go on and assert your obvious logical fallacies, your predictable misrepresentations, your laughable errors of fact--your incredible and unbelievable dumb; and expose yourself once again to be the retard we all know you are.

I will not respond until you in your own words provide answers to my questions and give the evidence to support your assertions.

Done. Again.

 

[LOki]

Yes, evolution is based on faith and the flowery ability to make up stories that "sound" scientific. It is extrapolation gone wild.

Nope. This is just superstition claiming science is no more valid than itself.

Nope. This is just superstition again claiming science is no more valid than itself.

Right.

I mean out of the billions of random mutations, NS whittled them down to the traits we see now, right. Evolutionists are fond of pointing to negative mutations which occur at a single locus, but let's hear some examples of "positive" modern day mutations that occur at a single loki, I mean locus, in multi-cell species. There should be thousands of them... I'm waiting...

Youwerecreated asked, and was rewarded numerous times already. If you really think he wasn't, just ask for a link ... whereas you asshats can't be bothered, you'll discover that I can come through.
PREDICTION: The superstitious intellectually dishonest creationist retards--who are so rabidly certain they can stump me or any sensible person with their disingenuous challenges, are so much more interested in claiming that I didn't meet their dumb challenge than seeing links that describe "examples of "positive" modern day mutations"--won't ask for links, but instead claim I haven't met their dumbass challenge.

Prediction validated. When will you asshats learn that your commitment to being stupid combined with your intellectual dishonesty is what makes your idiocy so transparent and predictable?

 

[daws101]

Not a dodge.

I will admit I am no fan of religion I don't believe God is either by what he says about it in the bible,especially what he says in the book of Revelations.

Abraham did not need an organized religion to have a relationship with the Almighty.

nice contradiction you are no fan of religion but you do belong to one.
Abraham: Joseph Blenkinsopp said that the Genesis story of Abraham has not been transmitted by oral traditions, but from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE.[10] He said that it served to assure the Israelites in exile that despite the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Davidic kingship, Yahweh's dealings with their ancestors provided a historical foundation on which hope for the future could be built.[11] Abraham's association with Mamre and Hebron, in the south, in the territory of Jerusalem and Judah, suggests that this region was the original home of his cult

I am not a member of an organized religion that doctrine drives the meetings. Maybe I should have been clearer what organized religion is and no Abraham did not gather to worship the Almighty YAHWEH.

The main purpose of the temple was for sacrifice and prayer. The temples became corrupt that is why Jesus condemed what was going on in the temple and That is why ultimately God allowed the destruction of both temples. Because what they taught and did in the temples.

Mat 21:13 And He said to them, It is written, "My house shall be called the house of prayer"; but you have made it a den of thieves.

dodge

 

[UltimateReality]

your intellectual dishonesty is ...

You sure like that term. You've used it over and over and over. This is another evolutionist trick. Say things enough times and maybe people will start to believe it.

So you are saying your un-intellectual honesty is better than my intellectual dishonesty?

 

[daws101]

your intellectual dishonesty is ...

You sure like that term. You've used it over and over and over. This is another evolutionist trick. Say things enough times and maybe people will start to believe it.

So you are saying your un-intellectual honesty is better than my intellectual dishonesty?

cue buzzer! wrong that "trick" was in used by BELIEVERS LONG BEFORE EVOLUTION SCIENCE WAS INVENTED.
It's the oldest mass hypnosis tool in the book.
here a little test to show how well it works on people like you: "how many times a day do you: say the word god , pray say the word jesus, or any other religion based phrase?

if it's more than once or twice a day then you've been completely indoctrinated...

 

[LOki]

your intellectual dishonesty is ...

You sure like that term.

I sure do; particularly when it's so manifestly applicable.

You've used it over and over and over.

Because your retarded tribe gives me the opportunity to do so "... over and over and over."

This is another evolutionist trick.

Verifiability in objective reality is no trick.

Say things enough times and maybe people will start to believe it.

The actual "trick" you are referencing was invented by religion to disseminate superstitions as facts of reality.

So you are saying your un-intellectual honesty is better than my intellectual dishonesty?

No. I am saying my intellectual honesty is superior--both intellectually and morally--than your intellectual dishonesty.


BTW: Prediction validated.

 

[Dr Grump]

UR has come to the same conclusion I have.

Loki is a bad writer, besides being redundant. He doesn't say anything, but he sure loves to string those words together. He thinks people will read his garbage and think he's REALLY important and smart.

And apparently it worked with you.

Dunno about the importance. But he is smart (even if he is wrong about his stance on guns ). As stated, he is kicking these guys butts. I had to step away from this thread for a few weeks, I was cringing so much with embarassment for UR and YWC.

Since my first post was only 3 days ago, I put about as much stake in you ability to know what embarrassment constitutes as I do in your ability to read a calendar.

It was more aimed at YWC than you. Don't look at join dates. Please advise if I ever become that anally retentive...I'll shoot myself.

My point stands...you embarrass yourself with almost every post. However, your ignorance and lack of a real argument is nothing new. Anybody can debate based on faith. Putting in facts, is a whole other matter....

 

[Dr Grump]

UR has come to the same conclusion I have.

Loki is a bad writer, besides being redundant. He doesn't say anything, but he sure loves to string those words together. He thinks people will read his garbage and think he's REALLY important and smart.

And apparently it worked with you.

Dunno about the importance. But he is smart (even if he is wrong about his stance on guns ). As stated, he is kicking these guys butts. I had to step away from this thread for a few weeks, I was cringing so much with embarassment for UR and YWC.

Translated ,you stuck your fingers in your ears because you couldn't handle the truth.

No, I see you offering up nothing more than your faith-based arguments. IOW, hot air and not much else. You have absolutely no proof that a god exists, that Jesus was the son of a god, or that humans just appeared out of thin air due to the benevolence of some omnipresent being.

However, micro evolution as been proven beyond doubt, and certain fossil records show that there were certain species of being that existed that are now extinct. Is Darwin's Theory proof positive of evolution? Of course not. But it's not based on some 2000 year old fairytale either.