Creationists

[UltimateReality]

No...they have not you ignorant cow. Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.

So now you are channeling Carl Sagan???

You are just chock full of fantasy ideas eh Sport? Sorry ...I don't subscibe to ANY hocus pocus made up fairy tales. Why do guys like you give yourselves names with words like "reality" in them? Who do you think you are fooling? You can call youself anything you want but faith is a fantasy you happen to believe. Why the over reaching?

I think I hear your momma calling. Isn't it past your bedtime?? Tell me HUGGY, when you huggy your blanky, do you dream of the super nova's that made you exploding?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE9dEAx5Sgw&feature=player_detailpage"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE9dEAx5Sgw&feature=player_detailpage[/ame]

 

[The Irish Ram]

Science says you can't produce something from nothing.
What existed before the big bang?

 

[ilia25]

thanks, I'll continue to believe in God.

Which one?

There is only one God and one holy book that can stand up to scrutiny.

If that's so, then why 2/3 of humanity disagree with that statement?

 

[ilia25]

Let me point out another flaw in your thinking. You asserted that modern day humans evolved from neanderthals how is that since the neanderthals had larger brains ?

Fist, modern humans did not evolve from Neanderthals, they were different branches, sharing a common ancestor. Second, modern humans are smarter than Neanderthals because the structure of their brains is different.

I have a question to you as well -- why are you keep asking about things that you can read in any textbook?

They may not have had the technology of today but that does not mean humans today were more intelligent then neanderthals. Where do you get the evidence for all your assertions ? Have you ever seen the brain of a neanderthal ?

You are a person of faith admit it.

1. There is plenty of evidence -- for example, Neanderthals did not have throwing weapons.
2. I don't do assertions. I merely explain how the world looks based on known facts and logic.

 

[ilia25]

That's right, everybody has always existed.

No...they have not you ignorant cow. Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.

One day it rained on rocks and poof we had life,so what your saying is life evolved from a rock

You don't have a clue of what you are talking about. First off,RNA and DNA could not form in water nor when they were exposed to oxygen why is this so hard for your side to grasp ?

Is it hard for you to grasp that there was no free oxygen on Earth when the first RNA molecule had formed? And why it could not form in water?

 

[LOki]

Post the question. Link to it.

I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​

Montrovant posted it directly above you. Since Darwinism is about gradual change over millions of years, my point was to go from a hairy, large brow-boned hominid to the modern form of homo sapien, the brow bone obviously had to shrink and body hair had to be lost. It is ridiculous to think that natural selection would weed these individuals out that had minor changes no other hominid would notice. The sarcasm is... would NS really eliminate what I call the "inbetweener", especially when he or she was in the early stages of being in between? Basically, logic has to throw Darwinism out because it just can't fit with the dating of the fossils we find and the lack of transitional fossils. What we find in nature is punctuated equilibrium. If we are to believe in evolutionary theory, we have to believe that massive structural changes happened to organisms in EXTREMELY short periods (in the big scheme of earth's history) and then just as quickly stopped happening. Homo Sapien appears on the scene suddenly. But where were his great, great grandparents to the nth power while they were transitioning from the ape like hominids evolutionists get all giddy about? Why is there so much evidence fossil evidence for Neandertal and Homo Sapien, but none of the transitional species that came from their common ancestor and why didn't the guy with a 1mm less brow bone and less hair survive when it would be preposterous to believe that nature, other hominids, or natural selection could tell them apart? If we are to believe evolutionary theory, what accelerated the changes needed to go from one very diverse species to another with no evidence of anything in between? If we follow Darwin's own writings, in light of this evidence, we have to throw out his theory because the gradual change doesn't fit. It doesn't fit with the fossil record, and if we follow the hard line about random genetic mutations causing the species to have more "fitness" we can't logically explain the rapid change and abrupt stasis we find.

There it is, all in black and white, for you folks that totally missed the sarcastic simplified version. Doh!!!

Clearly you ask rhetorical questions (premised upon your-made-up-nonsense strawman version of evolutionary theory), but are you asking questions you actually expect answers for? If so, why don't you just level up and post them like an intellectually honest person?

Loki, here is what I have learned about you ...

--CRAP INCLUDING ULTIMATEREALITY'S MADE UP NONSENSE SNIPPED--​

Prediction validated.

EDIT: I couldn't let it slide.​

Loki, here is what I have learned about you in the short time I have been posting here. First, you like to post up video's of a very "intelligent sounding" IGNORANT englishman ...

Argumentum Ad-hominem.

who says a whole lot of nothing, makes circular arguments out of circular arguments, ...

Exposing circular arguments is not making circular arguments.

... manufactures strawmen out of left over straws and then doesn't even bother to tear them down, ....

Exposing strawmen is not making strawmen.

... says he is the know all on the theory of evolution, ...

A lie.

... but never really tells us what it really is, ...

Primarily because he's discussing the creationist strawmen.

... if it is what Darwin laid out in the origin of the species or something else.

If you think the 150 year old version of evolution is what is currently understood to be the Theory of Evolution, and that 150 year old version is what you're attacking, then my friend, what you're attacking is a strawman.

He speaks in assumptive language (typical) as if he has all the secrets and knows everything there is to know.

Strawman.

He spews a wild donkey guess on how the first cell formed, which is just speculation and not based in any science I know of.

It is well understood to be (informed) speculation, and your ignorance of science is an important point you should consider before you criticize any science.

You sadly seem to think he knows something and proudly display his stupidity as if we can all learn some deeper meaning about so many of the problematic issues facing the TOE if we just watch him.

No. I presented that vid to show you examples of the typical strawmen that are clearly not acceptable premises for intellectually honest inquiry.

It was clearly too much for you to bear.

So I wasted 10 minutes of my life watching a comepletely worthless video, which I promise you I will not do again.

I'm not at all sorry that your intellectual dishonesty was so butthurt.

Second, I have learned that you are an exquisite chess player. You will never allow yourself to get too many steps into an argument where you would have to admit you don't actually know the answer, or have to admit, yes, the theory of evolution has a ways to go to really explain that one.

An obvious lie.

Nope, you just rest comfortably, thinking the TOE has everything figured out and there are no valid questions. All problems solved... nothing to see here.

Another obvious lie.

You remind me of alot of Christians that don't like to ask hard questions about the Old Testament.

Projection.

You live in your little comfortable mind, never wandering into a gray area that would show weakness in your belief.

More projection.

You absolutely flee from any topic where you might have to admit you just don't know or conveniently just ignore the hard questions.

Yet another obvious lie.

You are, in effect, your own version of a strawman. You've built yourself up in your mind and dad burn it you'll be damned if you let anyone actually back you into a corner where you have to admit TOE doesn't have ALL the answers. You are a sad, sad, little man.

Hilarious projection.

You see, the simple response to the actual questions I asked (they were not rhetorical BTW) is "we simply don't have enough scientific evidence to give a definitive answer. Our theory has some holes in it but we are working on them.

I have never claimed that I (or science) assert any unconditional certainty ... in fact I have CLEARLY expressed otherwise.

And now you've earned earned your credentials, you're an intellectually dishonest retard.

CONGRATULATIONS!

 

[ilia25]

Science says you can't produce something from nothing.
What existed before the big bang?

Science also says that time did not exist before the Big Bang. So asking what existed before is like asking what exists to the south of the south pole.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Science says you can't produce something from nothing.
What existed before the big bang?

Science also says that time did not exist before the Big Bang. So asking what existed before is like asking what exists to the south of the south pole.

But, to ask what exists south of the south pole, confirms that there is a south pole.
If science believes that you can't produce something from nothing and that time did not exist before the big bang, then I want to know what it was that ran into each other?
Did two nothings bang together to form a something?

 

[LOki]

Science says you can't produce something from nothing.
What existed before the big bang?

Science also says that time did not exist before the Big Bang. So asking what existed before is like asking what exists to the south of the south pole.

But, to ask what exists south of the south pole, confirms that there is a south pole.
If science believes that you can't produce something from nothing and that time did not exist before the big bang, then I want to know what it was that ran into each other?
Did two nothings bang together to form a something?

HAHA! What two things (nothings?) are you talking about?

Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that you make is going to get anywhere?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Science also says that time did not exist before the Big Bang. So asking what existed before is like asking what exists to the south of the south pole.

But, to ask what exists south of the south pole, confirms that there is a south pole.
If science believes that you can't produce something from nothing and that time did not exist before the big bang, then I want to know what it was that ran into each other?
Did two nothings bang together to form a something?

HAHA! What two things (nothings?) are you talking about?

Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that you make is going to get anywhere?

Hi LOki, Thank you for crediting me with the First Law of Thermodynamics, but I am afraid Newton beat me to it. It's not my claim. But my question is, if nothing existed before the Big Bang then what the hell banged together to create everything, even time?
And if something did exist, and was capable of running into each other, then time had to exist before the big bang. 1 second before "they" banged into each other, "they" were hurling toward each other. There is a time line.

 

[LOki]

But, to ask what exists south of the south pole, confirms that there is a south pole.
If science believes that you can't produce something from nothing and that time did not exist before the big bang, then I want to know what it was that ran into each other?
Did two nothings bang together to form a something?

HAHA! What two things (nothings?) are you talking about?

Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that you make is going to get anywhere?

Hi LOki, Thank you for crediting me with the First Law of Thermodynamics, but I am afraid Newton beat me to it. It's not my claim. But my question is, if nothing existed before the Big Bang then what the hell banged together to create everything, even time?

Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that you make is going to get anywhere?

And if something did exist, and was capable of running into each other, then time had to exist before the big bang. 1 second before "they" banged into each other, "they" were hurling toward each other. There is a time line.

Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that you make is going to get anywhere?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Which one?

There is only one God and one holy book that can stand up to scrutiny.

I believe in God and am a Christian but not even ministers (ones that have attended a proper seminary - 8 years including learning Hebrew, Latin, and Greek) believe the Bible stands up to rigorous intelectual scrutiny.

If it did one would not need the concept of "Faith".

It takes faith to believe in someone we have never seen. It takes faith to believe in creation. It takes faith to believe that one day he will cleanse the earth of all sin and the earth is filled with God fearing people. It takes faith to believe in the miracles recorded in the bible.

Now if there is a God that did all these things surely he preserved an accurate account of his word. I have over thirteen different bibles and I find no contradictions with any of them. I have my Greek and Hebrew interlinears.

Yes it does take faith,apparently you do not have faith in the bible by your comment. The true problem is not Gods word but those who try to force the bible to support their views. So please don't try and tell me biblical scholars that are true believers believe the same as you.

I'm not trying to make this personal but I am asking what faith do you have in God if you do not believe his words can't stand up to scrutiny ? Because the bible does not answer all my questions does not mean I can't trust it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No...they have not you ignorant cow. Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.

So now you are channeling Carl Sagan???

You are just chock full of fantasy ideas eh Sport? Sorry ...I don't subscibe to ANY hocus pocus made up fairy tales. Why do guys like you give yourselves names with words like "reality" in them? Who do you think you are fooling? You can call youself anything you want but faith is a fantasy you happen to believe. Why the over reaching?

Sorry to break it to you but you do subscribe to hocus pocus if you subscribe to macro-evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Which one?

There is only one God and one holy book that can stand up to scrutiny.

If that's so, then why 2/3 of humanity disagree with that statement?

I hate bringing this up.

Joh 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

2Co 4:4 in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.

Mat 7:13 Go in by the narrow door; for wide is the door and open is the way which goes to destruction, and great numbers go in by it.
Mat 7:14 For narrow is the door and hard the road to life, and only a small number make discovery of it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Fist, modern humans did not evolve from Neanderthals, they were different branches, sharing a common ancestor. Second, modern humans are smarter than Neanderthals because the structure of their brains is different.

I have a question to you as well -- why are you keep asking about things that you can read in any textbook?

They may not have had the technology of today but that does not mean humans today were more intelligent then neanderthals. Where do you get the evidence for all your assertions ? Have you ever seen the brain of a neanderthal ?

You are a person of faith admit it.

1. There is plenty of evidence -- for example, Neanderthals did not have throwing weapons.
2. I don't do assertions. I merely explain how the world looks based on known facts and logic.

That still does not support the your claim that neanderthals were less intelligent. A simple no would have answered the question that have you ever studied the brain of a neanderthal. And sometimes things are not the way they appear.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No...they have not you ignorant cow. Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.

One day it rained on rocks and poof we had life,so what your saying is life evolved from a rock

You don't have a clue of what you are talking about. First off,RNA and DNA could not form in water nor when they were exposed to oxygen why is this so hard for your side to grasp ?

Is it hard for you to grasp that there was no free oxygen on Earth when the first RNA molecule had formed? And why it could not form in water?

Prove there was no free oxygen when life began. You are relying on speculation not fact.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Science says you can't produce something from nothing.
What existed before the big bang?

Science also says that time did not exist before the Big Bang. So asking what existed before is like asking what exists to the south of the south pole.

How do you know noting existed outside our universe ?

Where did matter come from in that case ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

But, to ask what exists south of the south pole, confirms that there is a south pole.
If science believes that you can't produce something from nothing and that time did not exist before the big bang, then I want to know what it was that ran into each other?
Did two nothings bang together to form a something?

HAHA! What two things (nothings?) are you talking about?

Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that you make is going to get anywhere?

Hi LOki, Thank you for crediting me with the First Law of Thermodynamics, but I am afraid Newton beat me to it. It's not my claim. But my question is, if nothing existed before the Big Bang then what the hell banged together to create everything, even time?
And if something did exist, and was capable of running into each other, then time had to exist before the big bang. 1 second before "they" banged into each other, "they" were hurling toward each other. There is a time line.

Yep,one day nothing blew up and created all we see.

 

[Youwerecreated]

HAHA! What two things (nothings?) are you talking about?

Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that you make is going to get anywhere?

Hi LOki, Thank you for crediting me with the First Law of Thermodynamics, but I am afraid Newton beat me to it. It's not my claim. But my question is, if nothing existed before the Big Bang then what the hell banged together to create everything, even time?

Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that you make is going to get anywhere?

And if something did exist, and was capable of running into each other, then time had to exist before the big bang. 1 second before "they" banged into each other, "they" were hurling toward each other. There is a time line.

Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that you make is going to get anywhere?

Typical Loki response.

 

[cooky]

Montrovant posted it directly above you. Since Darwinism is about gradual change over millions of years, my point was to go from a hairy, large brow-boned hominid to the modern form of homo sapien, the brow bone obviously had to shrink and body hair had to be lost. It is ridiculous to think that natural selection would weed these individuals out that had minor changes no other hominid would notice. The sarcasm is... would NS really eliminate what I call the "inbetweener", especially when he or she was in the early stages of being in between? Basically, logic has to throw Darwinism out because it just can't fit with the dating of the fossils we find and the lack of transitional fossils. What we find in nature is punctuated equilibrium. If we are to believe in evolutionary theory, we have to believe that massive structural changes happened to organisms in EXTREMELY short periods (in the big scheme of earth's history) and then just as quickly stopped happening. Homo Sapien appears on the scene suddenly. But where were his great, great grandparents to the nth power while they were transitioning from the ape like hominids evolutionists get all giddy about? Why is there so much evidence fossil evidence for Neandertal and Homo Sapien, but none of the transitional species that came from their common ancestor and why didn't the guy with a 1mm less brow bone and less hair survive when it would be preposterous to believe that nature, other hominids, or natural selection could tell them apart? If we are to believe evolutionary theory, what accelerated the changes needed to go from one very diverse species to another with no evidence of anything in between? If we follow Darwin's own writings, in light of this evidence, we have to throw out his theory because the gradual change doesn't fit. It doesn't fit with the fossil record, and if we follow the hard line about random genetic mutations causing the species to have more "fitness" we can't logically explain the rapid change and abrupt stasis we find.

There it is, all in black and white, for you folks that totally missed the sarcastic simplified version. Doh!!!

While the fossil record incomete in a great many respects there are numerous examples of hominid transition species. The homo genus is represented by more than a dozen different species which lived from >1mya to present. Additionally, the austrolapithicus genus is represented by numerous species some of which are more than 5my old. Evolutionis occurs by more than one process- it can be slow, fast, complex and simple- but it is NOT random. most assuredley, darwin was incorrect about some aspects of the ancestry of life however that does not diminish his great contributions to science. There are no absolute truths or facts in science and there is quite a bit science can not explain. However, the Theory that all life shares common asncestry is all but universally accepted as all evidence known to date supports this conlusion. I would encouragee everyone to study the TOE as most arguments against it are based on misconceptions. As a biologist i would b happy to answer any questions you mighthave as best i can