Creationists

[Photonic]

There is no way DNA molecules could have formed with oxygen present

That is what baffles me. Like before shouting "A-ha!", have you even tried to think it out? Why do you believe that of all things it was the presence of oxygen that should have prevented DNA from assembling itself?

Especially since every study done indicates that Earth did not form oxygen until the appearance of cyanobacteria.

 

[ilia25]

There is no way DNA molecules could have formed with oxygen present

That is what baffles me. Like before shouting "A-ha!", have you even tried to think it out? Why do you believe that of all things it was the presence of oxygen that should have prevented DNA from assembling itself?

Especially since every study done indicates that Earth did not form oxygen until the appearance of cyanobacteria.

Yes, that's why I was wondering! There is no way the guy did any research whatsoever before suggesting that nonsense about oxygen. It's like he is just throwing random words at the wall hoping that something would stick.

 

[LOki]

So RNA spontaneously generated itself. Whatever.

Yes, they have reproduced this in the lab not long ago.

Do you realize what they needed was an enviornment absent of oxygen and had electricity,and it was intelligence that actually performed the experiment ?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOljew9j4Rk"]Youwerecreated or UltimateReality? Both?[/ame]

 

[ilia25]

I noticed no one said anything about the DNA evidence for an African Eve.

What would you want to hear? The whole idea of finding historical/scientific confirmation of the Bible story is a nonsense. If you believe in God, you don't need any scientific proof.

"The God created the world the way it is and not the other because He knows better" -- and that gives you both complete and self-consistent explanation for anything and everything.

It is also true, that to many people the explanation above feels deeply unsatisfactory. We want to create a model of the world that is based on facts logic and can, therefore, give us useful predictions that we can trust. We need it so we can make the world a better place.

 

[daws101]

Exploring Life's Origins: A Timeline of Life's Evolution

 

[UltimateReality]

So you are disputing the claim that somewhere between the early hominids, claimed to be ancestors of homo sapien by your Darwinist spin doctors, and homo sapien himself, there did not exist a species that was a single gradual step between the two distinct hominids at specific points in earth's history that had an a) smaller brain? b) more body hair? and c) a larger brow bone?

Like how you conveniently dodged this question. You are like Loki... a bunch of words and no substance.

 

[UltimateReality]

I noticed no one said anything about the DNA evidence for an African Eve.

ahhh. A classic Darwinist blunder.. confuse adaptation with the real meaing of the word evolution, i.e. a claim a species can move from a less complexity to more complexity.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yes, they have reproduced this in the lab not long ago.

Do you realize what they needed was an enviornment absent of oxygen and had electricity,and it was intelligence that actually performed the experiment ?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOljew9j4Rk"]Youwerecreated or UltimateReality? Both?[/ame]

What was the point in posting up such an ignorant video. No wonder you use so many flowery words to say absolutely nothing!! You've been listening to this clown for too long. He seems very impressed with himself but manages never to provide any real answers to the questions. What does neo-Darwinism teach if it doesn't teach that everything alive today came from a common ancestor. Someone please explain to me just how far back the TOE goes. I mean, what is the common ancestor?? A fish? An Amoeba? A Trilobite? An E'Coli? A Monkey? I mean, what does TOE claim is the first Turtle??

"A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

 

[UltimateReality]

I noticed no one said anything about the DNA evidence for an African Eve.

What would you want to hear? The whole idea of finding historical/scientific confirmation of the Bible story is a nonsense. If you believe in God, you don't need any scientific proof.

"The God created the world the way it is and not the other because He knows better" -- and that gives you both complete and self-consistent explanation for anything and everything.

It is also true, that to many people the explanation above feels deeply unsatisfactory. We want to create a model of the world that is based on facts logic and can, therefore, give us useful predictions that we can trust. We need it so we can make the world a better place.

This is funny. Your theory has no foundation for ethics. What is a "better place"?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI[/ame]

 

[LOki]

I noticed no one said anything about the DNA evidence for an African Eve.

What would you want to hear? The whole idea of finding historical/scientific confirmation of the Bible story is a nonsense. If you believe in God, you don't need any scientific proof.

"The God created the world the way it is and not the other because He knows better" -- and that gives you both complete and self-consistent explanation for anything and everything.

It is also true, that to many people the explanation above feels deeply unsatisfactory. We want to create a model of the world that is based on facts logic and can, therefore, give us useful predictions that we can trust. We need it so we can make the world a better place.

This is funny. Your theory has no foundation for ethics. What is a "better place"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]

=

LOLsome.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The Bible gets it right by accident, you just ignore or rationalize away those instances it's unmistakably wrong.

I'm waiting for you to back your claim.

Clearly the Earth is not flat (resting on foundations) with a solid dome (with windows to let out the waters of the firmament) over it.

Clearly you once again don't know what you are talking about. It was not just Christians who believed it.

It actually is a myth from a few Christians that your side used as evidence to put all Christians in one group on this issue.

Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth | MandM

The Myth of the Flat Earth

Myth of the Flat Earth

Who invented the idea of a flat Earth?

Still waiting.

 

[ilia25]

I noticed no one said anything about the DNA evidence for an African Eve.

What would you want to hear? The whole idea of finding historical/scientific confirmation of the Bible story is a nonsense. If you believe in God, you don't need any scientific proof.

"The God created the world the way it is and not the other because He knows better" -- and that gives you both complete and self-consistent explanation for anything and everything.

It is also true, that to many people the explanation above feels deeply unsatisfactory. We want to create a model of the world that is based on facts logic and can, therefore, give us useful predictions that we can trust. We need it so we can make the world a better place.

This is funny. Your theory has no foundation for ethics. What is a "better place"?

Would you please stop making ridiculous claims? A better place is a place where people feel less pain and more pleasure. You do not need God's teachings to feel the difference.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A prime example of the predictable Christian Creationist denial of reality, that is a necessary appurtenance of their faith: if a post fully refutes a Christian Creationist's lies and retarded assertions, then they are just "... rhetoric and nothing of substance."

If you think your posts refute ID, you are more delusional than I previously thought.

No. My posts refute the manifestly dumbass assertions you and your retarded tribe post as refutations of the Theory of Evolution.

No your posts show you as an ignorant Ideologue.

 

[Montrovant]

So you are disputing the claim that somewhere between the early hominids, claimed to be ancestors of homo sapien by your Darwinist spin doctors, and homo sapien himself, there did not exist a species that was a single gradual step between the two distinct hominids at specific points in earth's history that had an a) smaller brain? b) more body hair? and c) a larger brow bone?

Like how you conveniently dodged this question. You are like Loki... a bunch of words and no substance.

I didn't dodge anything. As I said, I never made any such statement, I never disputed anything of the sort. I very specifically pointed out the apparent flaws in your statements about minor cosmetic changes (two hair folicles!). You are attempting to add meaning to my posts that does not exist in order to further your argument.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

That is the problem,your presuppositions eliminate the possibility of the designer.

No, it doesn't. It just shows that the intelligent life was bound to appear even in the absence of a designer.

Nothing created gets better on it's own it is up to the designer to make things better. Your view defies logic.

Do you think my house or my car would get better if I didn't maintain them ? How bout my body ?

 

[LOki]

If you think your posts refute ID, you are more delusional than I previously thought.

No. My posts refute the manifestly dumbass assertions you and your retarded tribe post as refutations of the Theory of Evolution.

No your posts show you as an ignorant Ideologue.

Nonsense. You're just another superstitious retard without a single fact of reality in his arsenal, desperately trying to assert that magic is valid, and his belief is what determines what is real.

 

[daws101]

I'm waiting for you to back your claim.

Clearly the Earth is not flat (resting on foundations) with a solid dome (with windows to let out the waters of the firmament) over it.

Clearly you once again don't know what you are talking about.

It actually is a myth from a few Christians that your side used as evidence to put all Christians in one group on this issue.

Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth | MandM

The Myth of the Flat Earth

Myth of the Flat Earth

Who invented the idea of a flat Earth?

Still waiting.

speaking of myths:

 

[UltimateReality]

Like how you conveniently dodged this question. You are like Loki... a bunch of words and no substance.

I didn't dodge anything. As I said, I never made any such statement, I never disputed anything of the sort. I very specifically pointed out the apparent flaws in your statements about minor cosmetic changes (two hair folicles!). You are attempting to add meaning to my posts that does not exist in order to further your argument.

Third dodge.

 

[daws101]

Like how you conveniently dodged this question. You are like Loki... a bunch of words and no substance.

I didn't dodge anything. As I said, I never made any such statement, I never disputed anything of the sort. I very specifically pointed out the apparent flaws in your statements about minor cosmetic changes (two hair folicles!). You are attempting to add meaning to my posts that does not exist in order to further your argument.

Third dodge.

what's the question?

 

[UltimateReality]

What would you want to hear? The whole idea of finding historical/scientific confirmation of the Bible story is a nonsense. If you believe in God, you don't need any scientific proof.

"The God created the world the way it is and not the other because He knows better" -- and that gives you both complete and self-consistent explanation for anything and everything.

It is also true, that to many people the explanation above feels deeply unsatisfactory. We want to create a model of the world that is based on facts logic and can, therefore, give us useful predictions that we can trust. We need it so we can make the world a better place.

This is funny. Your theory has no foundation for ethics. What is a "better place"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]

=

LOLsome.

Hey, it was your boy in the video that said evolution has no foundation for ethics. Loki, do you find "proximal" meaning?