Creationists

[daws101]

Can you see the wind driving them ?

yes you can.
there are several ways ,smoke and dust denote the direction of the wind and outline it's basic shape
there are also microscopic techniques, film,
you feel and smell the wind.
two of your three main senses informing your third.

so your question is bullshit!

No you can't see wind you can see it's effects.

God is a spirit the Hebrew word is Ruach,which means wind or spirit and we can clearly see Gods effects by his design.

another steaming pile

 

[daws101]

If there is no air you have no condensation.

if by air you mean atmosphere, all of the planets in our solar system have one. any gas or mixture of gases will condense under the right condition of pressure and temperature.
ever here of liquid oxygen, co2?


again it's an amazingly stupid statement

Stupid ?

There is not one planet that can sustain life like earth in our solar system . Many of those atmospheres you speak of contain gases that would be lethal to humans and many other life forms.

Nothing like earth.

Atmosphere of the Planets

extremely stupid the post was about condensation,and always you having no real answer did the two step!

 

[daws101]

You also could not have flight of a bird or plane if we did not have an atmosphere , is that not another coincedence ?

wrong again , if the pull of gravity was slightly less we could fly ,after all flying is just a very long jump.

Your missing the point it was designed such a way that birds can fly like most were designed to do.

If the pull of gravity was slightly less,i'm sorry but were we discussing gravity or the atmosphere ?

If gravity had less pull but it does not it would have an effect on other things thank you for making an argument that supports design. Not to mention less gravity would affect the planes that planets travel on.

we were discussing both as one affects the other.
I did not make that argument, you intentionally misinterpreted it.
that is libelous .

 

[daws101]

So what you are saying is all transitional organisms happen tro live in enviornments they could not survive in,this is an absurd explanation.

No. This is not what was said, you intellectually dishonest retard.

Nothging is an exact match the creator likes diversity .

What Creator? You keep mentioning this "Creator," but you fail to bring any valid verifiable evidence or valid logic to advance the assertion of this "Creator" of yours.

Every "evidence" and every argument you present ONLY asserts that this "Creator" of yours is as objectively and verifiably real as beings that are well understood to be imaginary, ... like the Tooth Fairy. Why is that?

I will not respond to a dishonest moron until said moron shows an ounce of honesty.

dodge!

 

[daws101]

Your point being....?

his "point" is on the top of his head.

You still here sweetie

sexist too... it figures !

 

[UltimateReality]

However, micro evolution as been proven beyond doubt

Wow! and Loki is accusing me of believing in fairytales?!?!?!

 

[UltimateReality]

Can something appear out of thin air?

You mean like a Quark?

 

[UltimateReality]

Because they occupy different ecological niches. Apes and modern humans occupy different niches, so the both survived. But Neanderthals and Homo Erectus got extinct because they occupied the same niche as the modern humans.

Assumptive language is great, isn't it?? State something like it is a fact and maybe folks will believe it. You have absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for your statement above.

"The Cosmos is all there ever was..." Carl Sagan using ASSumptive language before being totally embarrASSed by the Big Bang theory.

 

[UltimateReality]

if by air you mean atmosphere, ALL of the planets in our solar system have one.

I'd saying Mercury has an atmosphere is a little of a stretch. Kind of like saying their is evidence for evolution. The amount of particles is so small and insignificant can it really qualify as an atmosphere?

 

[ilia25]

Because they occupy different ecological niches. Apes and modern humans occupy different niches, so the both survived. But Neanderthals and Homo Erectus got extinct because they occupied the same niche as the modern humans.

Assumptive language is great, isn't it?? State something like it is a fact and maybe folks will believe it. You have absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for your statement above.

Don't be silly! You think there's no evidence that Neanderthals were living along our ancestors, hunting the same game?

 

[whitehall]

"Scientists" today think that a carbon cloud created by (American) industry is the cause of global warming even when they have the technology that proves that global warming and the more sinister ice ages have been a factor on earth before humans ever lit a fire. Go figure. Faith is a funny thing.

 

[ilia25]

"Scientists" today think that a carbon cloud created by (American) industry is the cause of global warming even when they have the technology that proves that global warming and the more sinister ice ages have been a factor on earth before humans ever lit a fire. Go figure. Faith is a funny thing.

Troll...

 

[LOki]

No we were spot on concerning your intellectual dishonesty. A simple yes to one of the answers would have shown you were an honest person. You are an Ideologue.

It appears that Youwerecreated presented 4 questions as a test of my intellectual honesty.

And yes, he considered it a test, as evidenced by his own words below,

Intellectual honesty,let's test your intellectual honesty you have been given many chances to be honest and you failed.

Nonsense. In terms you will clearly understand Youwerecreated, you have just borne false witness against me ... again.

The ironic thing here is that while I answered with full integrity of intellectual honesty; the questions Youwerecreated posed AND his response to to my answers evidence HIS intellectual dishonesty.

As we procede, keep in mind that, according to Youwerecreated, "[a] simple yes to one of the answers would have shown [that I am] an honest person." The response "YES," is the response he is expecting he'll have the opportunity to respond to, and that fact that I didn't say "YES" is why he has his panties in a bunch.

Let's examine the record:

Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?

Valid logic applied the verifiable evidence supports the conclusion that intelligence is the result of the interactions of non-intelligent natural processes.

Can life come from non-life through a natural process ?

Valid logic applied the verifiable evidence supports the conclusion that life is the result of the interactions of non-living natural processes.

At first blush, it looks like I said "YES," but didn't express it so simply for one of the many reasons Youwerecreated and his retarded tribe fatuously ascribe to vanity on my part.

The fact of the matter is that I have had plenty of experience with the retarded tribe Youwercreated belongs to, and I recognized the trap he set with these loaded questions (AKA, complex questions).

You see, I don't assert that a "non-intelligent natural process" or a non-living natural process is capable of CREATING anything. Youwerecreated knows this, because I've said it. What Youwerecreated is NOT telling you while he's accusing me of intellectual dishonesty is that he also knows that I think (for excellent reasons) CREATING is an intelligent process performed by living things.

Often, the term "create" is used imprecisely to simply mean "cause;" as in, "Freezing temperatures created thick ice on the pond." The term's primary meaning, however, asserts an intelligent will to purpose for creation, that is not necessarily present when using the term "cause."

So why then did I not simply say "NO"? Well, the obvious answer is that Youwerecreated would then pounce upon the opportunity to make a claim like, "So, you're saying that you think intelligence and life were created by an intelligent, living process?"

(n.b.: Whenever Youwerecreated begins an analysis of what his opposition asserts with "So, you're [saying, or thinking, or etc.] ...", you can be confident that a flagrant misrepresentation is about to follow.)​

Youwerecreated obviously expected me to say "YES," and is just pissed that he couldn't trap me into asserting that the processes that gave rise to life and intelligence were by definition alive and intelligent.

Only retards like those who belong to the Christian Creationist tribe would assert that their failure to trap someone with their disingenuous loaded questions is evidence of their target's intellectual dishonesty.

How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?

"How come no transitional organisms are alive today ..." ? What? ... Why what?

Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you premise your incoherent question upon the assertion that, "... no transitional organisms are alive today"?

Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that a transitional species can be a parent species?

Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that a transitional species can be a daughter species?

Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that transitional species, daughter species, and/or parent species can exist at the same time?​

​

Seriously. There is literally no way to determine what any answer to Youwerecreated's question might mean--especially to Youwerecreated. What an incoherent cluster-fuck of a misrepresenting non-sequitur this question from his is. It's like 12 orders of magnitude of intellectual dishonesty.

2. Nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution would you see an evolutionist claiming that "... no transitional organisms are alive today ...".
3. Nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution would you see an evolutionist claiming that a daughter species CANNOT go extinct before its parent species.
4. Nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution would you see an evolutionist claiming that a parent species MUST go extinct before its daughter species.
5. Nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution would you see an evolutionist claiming that transitional species CANNOT be both daughter species and parent species.
6. Nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution would you see an evolutionist claiming that NEITHER parent species OR daughter species can be transitional species.
7. Nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution would you see an evolutionist claiming that parent and daughter species MUST directly compete with eachother for the same resources for survival.
8. Nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution would you see an evolutionist claiming that parent, and daughter species cannot co-exist at the same time.

The fact of the matter, and this has been demonstrated with EVERY exposure of Youwerecreated's quote-mining, is that nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution can the Christian Creationist's criticisms of Evolution be considered valid.

Only retards like those who belong to the Christian Creationist tribe would assert that someone's refusal to accept the validity of a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution to be evidence of intellectual dishonesty.

The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?

The term "kind" is meaningless--this has been unimpeachably demonstrated--I can't agree or disagree with a meaningless assertion made (10 times) in your creation myth.

Youwerecreated has consistenty demonstrated that the meaning of the term "kind" (just like the meaning of the term micro/macro-evolution) is whatever he finds convenient to his point, and it's not what he finds inconvenient to his point. He remains consipcuously silent on the observation that by one of the ways he enthusiasically uses the term "kind," lions and tigers are the same kind of cat because they successfully "bring forth" (ligers). Yet male ligers and female ligers do not "bring forth"; male and female ligers are somehow NOT the same kind of cat. It's INEXPLICABLE!

Only retards like those who belong to the Christian Creationist tribe would assert that someone's suspicions regarding the a Christian Creationist's use of intentionally imprecise terms, someone's inability to answer questions using such imprecise terms, to be evidence of intellectual dishonesty.

It's now worth noting, that I have provided as usual (and consistent with intellectual honesty) not only my conclusions regarding Youwerecreated's intellectual honesty, but also the explanations, the reasoning, and the evidence (linked to their sources) to support my conclusions. It is also worth noting, that Youwerecreated simply expects that his conclusions should be accepted as valid without any explanations, reasoning, and/or evidence (certainly none linked to their sources) to support them.

I'd call his four questions a fine test of intellectual honesty; a test that I passed, and that he failed--miserably so.

 

[koshergrl]

Thank you. We had waaayyyy too much oxygen in this thread. Now it is effectively sucked away.

 

[LOki]

Thank you. We had waaayyyy too much oxygen in this thread. Now it is effectively sucked away.

We are all aware that you prefer the rarefied atmosphere of a paper-bag filled with the vapors of glue solvents.

 

[koshergrl]

Did you say something?

Rhetorical question. Please for God's sakes, don't waste bandwidth with your insanely long, boring and unnecessary answer.

 

[LOki]

You are an Ideologue.

Also, This accusation of "Ideologue." You should look up big words before you use them and make sure they don't describe you, rather than your target.

i·de·o·logue   [ahy-dee-uh-lawg, -log, id-ee-, ahy-dee-]

noun

a person who zealously advocates an ideology.

i·de·ol·o·gy   [ahy-dee-ol-uh-jee, id-ee-]

noun, plural -gies.

1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.​

My position is the result of valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence. All the verifiable evidence supports my position--ALL of the verifiable evidence; AND, consistent with VALID logic, my position DOES NOT EXCLUDE an intelligent agency responsible for the universe as we perceive it.

You have this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours, who you assert is "proof" of creation; and you assert "creation" as "proof" of this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" 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.

EVERY "evidence" you bring to rationalize this fallacious assertion of yours also suffers from this same logical fallacy; in order to accept this "evidence of creation" you must FIRST accept the validity of this "Creator" of yours.

You validate evidence against your conclusion rather than validating your conclusion against evidence; rather than applying valid logic to verifiable evidence to reach your conclusion, you bring your conclusion to the table as if already valid, and then seek (question-begging) "evidence" to support your conclusion.

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

Your position, ENTIRELY BASELESS in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, EXCLUDES for no INTELLECTUALLY VALID reason EVERY explanation that does not assert this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours.

So, who is REALLY the ideologue?

 

[koshergrl]

Oh. My. God.

*gasp*
turning blue from lack...of...oxygen...can't...breathe....

 

[daws101]

Oh. My. God.

*gasp*
turning blue from lack...of...oxygen...can't...breathe....

not to worry, your faith should save you.....

 

[koshergrl]

asserting invalid logic.....entirely baseless....no intellectually valid.....

Help...the god of Redundancy is getting wound up again....