Creationists

[koshergrl]

validate evidence....valid logic...verifiable evidence...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA...

Honestly, does anyone have the stomach to count how many repeats there are in that post?

 

[daws101]

validate evidence....valid logic...verifiable evidence...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA...

Honestly, does anyone have the stomach to count how many repeats there are in that post?

 

[koshergrl]

You are an Ideologue.

Also, This accusation of "Ideologue." (sentence frag) 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 (redundant) applied to the verifiable evidence. (Redundant) All the verifiable evidence (redundant) supports my position--ALL of the verifiable evidence; (for the love of GOD please stop using this idiotic and redundant phrase, save yourself) AND, consistent with VALID logic, (What is invalid logic?) my position DOES NOT EXCLUDE an intelligent agency responsible for the universe as we perceive it. (Congrats for saying absolutely nothing while keeping up a consistent and annoying buzzing).

You have this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours, (redundant, "you" and "yours") who you assert is "proof" of creation; and you assert "creation" as "proof" of this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours. (nonsense)You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) (AD NAUSEUM indeed, lol) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining (omfuckinggod...redundant) 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. (Redundant and retarded, plus it just doesn't make sense. "F" for grammar and syntax, idiot).

EVERY "evidence" (there is no such thing as "every evidence") you bring to rationalize this fallacious assertion of yours also suffers from this same logical fallacy; (redundant, or you are trying to win an award for inserting "fall" words as many times as possible in a sentence) in order to accept this "evidence of creation" you must FIRST accept the validity of this "Creator" of yours. (By this point, nobody, including you, knows what the fuck you are talking about.)

You validate evidence (Redundant, you idiot. Evidence doesn't require validation. It IS validation) against your conclusion rather than validating your conclusion against evidence; (BWAHAHAHAHA) rather than applying valid logic to verifiable evidence to reach your conclusion, (good lord would you stop) you bring your conclusion to the table as if already valid, and then seek (question-begging) "evidence" to support your conclusion. (Again we peter out into nothingness.)

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. (One of many favorite nonsense phrases being upchucked here).

Your position, ENTIRELY BASELESS (redundant) 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. (Wouldn't it be much easier to say "I don't agree with you but I really have nothing more to say that that. But wait I'll puke up a bunch of words...over and over and over, and string them together into cool mucousy gobs of nonsense, and befuddle everyone that way! That will make me look Really Smart!)

So, who is REALLY the ideologue?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

What is your point because neanderthals were 100% human ? How do you know they were not deformed humans ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

"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...

Now that is not nice.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh. My. God.

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

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

This is actually a first, that I can say I totally agree with you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi YWC Hi Loki:
I see no reason to question each other's "intellectual honesty" or intelligence/character
just because of disagreements if one has seen enough proof or not
of EITHER "intelligent source of creating life" OR of "transitional species/evolution"

You can both look at the same examples, and either see or not see it the same way.
That is not necessarily any reason to judge one another for seeing it differently.

Either way, if you find it more beneficial to observe things OBJECTIVELY in life
WITHOUT assuming a divine creator or plan, so that you analyze things critically,
that is a perfectly fine purpose and a necessary one in studying and learning in life.

Or, if you find it easier to reconcile truths by accepting and gravitating TOWARD a perceived Creator and divine plan or will in life, that is helpful also for direction and focus.

Loki, trying to come to an understanding of what is meant by "God's plans for Creation"
it is not unlike working with the "laws of gravity" or "laws of natural healing."

We don't HAVE to "believe" these came from a divine source in order to
take advantage and apply how these work. We don't have to "convert to a scientist"
in order to use these natural laws for our benefit. That is not really the issue.

What matters is understanding how these processes in life work,
instead of wasting time negating or denying them, debating them with others in circles,
why not just use them as is?

If one can understand there is a "greater good will for all humanity" as a compelling force in life, toward forgiving and resolving the past in order to achieve lasting peace and justice in the future, then it is easier to reconcile one's own will and self with this higher scheme of things influencing all humanity.

If you DON'T need to know all that and how it works, then don't bother.

But for others it may help to accept this first, in order to better reconcile with higher truth and justice as a result -- instead of denying or rejecting any connection we may have with greater plans or forces operating in life.

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

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

Verifiability in objective reality is no trick.

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

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


BTW: Prediction validated.

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.

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

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

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?​

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.

 

[daws101]

Oh. My. God.

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

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

This is actually a first, that I can say I totally agree with you.

THEN YOU HAVE NO GRASP OF SARCASM OR IRONY, why dose's that not surprise me

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

This is actually a first, that I can say I totally agree with you.

THEN YOU HAVE NO GRASP OF SARCASM OR IRONY, why dose's that not surprise me

So you fault me for taking you at your word ? Sure I am good at detecting sarcasm,I saw truth in your words though. My faith will save me your faith ,well I won't speak for God and I don't have the ability to judge your heart.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

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?

Moron,the origional question was why are all the transitional organisms no longer in existence since the ones they supposedly evolved from are. Be careful about insulting someone that has a clue.

Would these be living transitional organisms YWC? :
Living Transitional Species, page 1

I did not see anything in there that transitioned between two species.

When I speak of transitional species I am speaking of a transitional species that connects two different family groups.

There are no living tranitional species period. That should cause any reasonable person to question why not if Macro-evolution is the cause of all the different family groups.

 

[ilia25]

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?

What is your point because neanderthals were 100% human ? How do you know they were not deformed humans ?

Because they look like a transition between apes and modern humans. Also because they predate modern humans.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

What is your point because neanderthals were 100% human ? How do you know they were not deformed humans ?

Because they look like a transition between apes and modern humans. Also because they predate modern humans.

Only in ones mind. They were 100% human.

 

[ilia25]

What is your point because neanderthals were 100% human ? How do you know they were not deformed humans ?

Because they look like a transition between apes and modern humans. Also because they predate modern humans.

Only in ones mind. They were 100% human.

Yup, that's the only way one can reject the Theory of Evolution -- by denying the obvious.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Because they look like a transition between apes and modern humans. Also because they predate modern humans.

Only in ones mind. They were 100% human.

Yup, that's the only way one can reject the Theory of Evolution -- by denying the obvious.

Let me share with you an article on neanderthal man that's causing me to pause On the idea that neanderthal man was a product of deformity. It also presents an argument agains't them being a human that evolved but devolved.

Go into it with an open mind and consider the explanation. There is evidence to support the argument.

Are Neanderthals the MISSING LINK between Man and apes?

 

[LOki]

You are an Ideologue.

Also, This accusation of "Ideologue." (sentence frag) 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 (redundant) applied to the verifiable evidence. (Redundant) All the verifiable evidence (redundant) supports my position--ALL of the verifiable evidence; (for the love of GOD please stop using this idiotic and redundant phrase, save yourself) AND, consistent with VALID logic, (What is invalid logic?) my position DOES NOT EXCLUDE an intelligent agency responsible for the universe as we perceive it. (Congrats for saying absolutely nothing while keeping up a consistent and annoying buzzing).

You have this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours, (redundant, "you" and "yours") who you assert is "proof" of creation; and you assert "creation" as "proof" of this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours. (nonsense)You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) (AD NAUSEUM indeed, lol) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining (omfuckinggod...redundant) 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. (Redundant and retarded, plus it just doesn't make sense. "F" for grammar and syntax, idiot).

EVERY "evidence" (there is no such thing as "every evidence") you bring to rationalize this fallacious assertion of yours also suffers from this same logical fallacy; (redundant, or you are trying to win an award for inserting "fall" words as many times as possible in a sentence) in order to accept this "evidence of creation" you must FIRST accept the validity of this "Creator" of yours. (By this point, nobody, including you, knows what the fuck you are talking about.)

You validate evidence (Redundant, you idiot. Evidence doesn't require validation. It IS validation) against your conclusion rather than validating your conclusion against evidence; (BWAHAHAHAHA) rather than applying valid logic to verifiable evidence to reach your conclusion, (good lord would you stop) you bring your conclusion to the table as if already valid, and then seek (question-begging) "evidence" to support your conclusion. (Again we peter out into nothingness.)

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. (One of many favorite nonsense phrases being upchucked here).

Your position, ENTIRELY BASELESS (redundant) 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. (Wouldn't it be much easier to say "I don't agree with you but I really have nothing more to say that that. But wait I'll puke up a bunch of words...over and over and over, and string them together into cool mucousy gobs of nonsense, and befuddle everyone that way! That will make me look Really Smart!)

So, who is REALLY the ideologue?

You're just really bad at that, aren't you?

 

[The Irish Ram]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

The answer may be in the first sentence of the Bible. Created, void, recreated, then man, (who was created 6,000 years ago).
God didn't create a void. He created Earth, which became a battle ground between God and Satan. There is no timeline given between the time He created, the length of void, and the 7 day creation of an earth suitable for mankind.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Also, This accusation of "Ideologue." (sentence frag) 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 (redundant) applied to the verifiable evidence. (Redundant) All the verifiable evidence (redundant) supports my position--ALL of the verifiable evidence; (for the love of GOD please stop using this idiotic and redundant phrase, save yourself) AND, consistent with VALID logic, (What is invalid logic?) my position DOES NOT EXCLUDE an intelligent agency responsible for the universe as we perceive it. (Congrats for saying absolutely nothing while keeping up a consistent and annoying buzzing).

You have this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours, (redundant, "you" and "yours") who you assert is "proof" of creation; and you assert "creation" as "proof" of this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours. (nonsense)You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) (AD NAUSEUM indeed, lol) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining (omfuckinggod...redundant) 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. (Redundant and retarded, plus it just doesn't make sense. "F" for grammar and syntax, idiot).

EVERY "evidence" (there is no such thing as "every evidence") you bring to rationalize this fallacious assertion of yours also suffers from this same logical fallacy; (redundant, or you are trying to win an award for inserting "fall" words as many times as possible in a sentence) in order to accept this "evidence of creation" you must FIRST accept the validity of this "Creator" of yours. (By this point, nobody, including you, knows what the fuck you are talking about.)

You validate evidence (Redundant, you idiot. Evidence doesn't require validation. It IS validation) against your conclusion rather than validating your conclusion against evidence; (BWAHAHAHAHA) rather than applying valid logic to verifiable evidence to reach your conclusion, (good lord would you stop) you bring your conclusion to the table as if already valid, and then seek (question-begging) "evidence" to support your conclusion. (Again we peter out into nothingness.)

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. (One of many favorite nonsense phrases being upchucked here).

Your position, ENTIRELY BASELESS (redundant) 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. (Wouldn't it be much easier to say "I don't agree with you but I really have nothing more to say that that. But wait I'll puke up a bunch of words...over and over and over, and string them together into cool mucousy gobs of nonsense, and befuddle everyone that way! That will make me look Really Smart!)

So, who is REALLY the ideologue?

You're just really bad at that, aren't you?

The true Ideologue is the one that continues to push his Ideology even though evidence proves him wrong. That would be you and ones like you.

 

[LOki]

You're just really bad at that, aren't you?

The true Ideologue is the one that continues to push his Ideology even though evidence proves him wrong. That would be you and ones like you.

HAHAHA! You have been proven wrong at every turn, and have failed to bring any evidence that proves any claim I have made wrong. What a douche!

 

[ilia25]

Only in ones mind. They were 100% human.

Yup, that's the only way one can reject the Theory of Evolution -- by denying the obvious.

Let me share with you an article on neanderthal man that's causing me to pause On the idea that neanderthal man was a product of deformity. It also presents an argument agains't them being a human that evolved but devolved.

Go into it with an open mind and consider the explanation. There is evidence to support the argument.

Are Neanderthals the MISSING LINK between Man and apes?

You are missing the point. I know that the Bible -- or, rather, its loose enough interpretation -- can explain Neanderthals and anything else we know about the world around us. And not a long time ago it was the best explanation -- but not anymore.

The goal of the Theory of Evolution is to explain how the humans first appeared on this planet without involving God and his miracles. And it has been hugely successful at that -- and in particular thanks to finding the remains of Neanderthals and other transitional species. And because of the success of the Theory of Evolution we have more reasons to believe that the Bible is not a divine gift, but a collections of myth and stories written by ancient people.