Creationists

[LOki]

Why are Darwinists so angry?? I know from law enforcement people get really upset and angry when they feel threatened. ... things that make you go "hmm".

There is a threat. The superstitious, like law enforcement officers, have an over-developed sense of entitlement to exercise violence when their position can't be validated by reason.

Loki and others assertions that there is no scientific evidence for a designer is an ABSOLUTE lie.

Of course you're not about to demonstrate that this is a lie.

Do we Theists believe that God is the designer? Yes. Can we scientifically prove that God is the origin of the design we find in nature? No.

Then just submit some evidence; evidence that does not require the question-begging presumption of a designer, in order that the "evidence" can be considered evidence of a designer.

Can we prove that an intelligent agent is responsible for the design in nature?

No. I You're not being asked to. You're just being asked to submit some evidence; evidence that does not require the question-begging presumption of an intelligent agent, in order that the "evidence" can be considered evidence of an intelligent agent.

We can present a valid scientific argument in the same way Materialists present current evidence as rationale for events that happen in the distant past and call it scientific theory.

Then do it. Just don't submit some question-begging and/or special-pleading argument and insist that it is valid. Ok?

It is so preposterous to me that people call ID Creationism when the ID proponents do everything they can to keep God out of the arguments.

No one is fooled by transparent euphemisms.

By strictly keeping to a scientific argument, they are called sneaky or accused of having an agenda or being called "intellectually dishonest" (puke).

False premise. Intelligent Design does not submit a scientific argument. ID is a transparent euphemism for Creationism; an intellectually dishonest attempt to dress Creationism in the vocabulary of science.

We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Yes, we believe the designer is God. But no, identifying the designer has no place in a scientific argument.

Neither is asserting the existence of this "Designer" of yours as a premise of the argument that concludes that this "Designer" of your exists.

 

[LOki]

Because people allow themselves to be blinded. Just like they allow themselves to be possessed and or lead down the wrong road.

How exactly people allow themselves to be blinded? By giving an explicit permission to satan? Or just by watching Discovery channel?

By warping their conscience as to what's right and wrong. If people can't see the design around them they are just simply blind.

 

[LOki]

My belief:

We are belief-run creatures. It is simply a matter of what information reaches a developing brain first: fact or fiction.

If it were that simple there would be no atheists out there Many people with religious upbringing eventually become atheists once they get to know this world. Unfortunately, it works both ways -- many people that were raised atheists become religious.

I think people become atheists simply because they are better at building a consistent model of the world around them.

That is not true there has always been atheists. People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.

A bold assertion that you will certainly not bother to demonstrate.

 

[LOki]

You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald.

So what if Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald have a great effect upon "the science community"?

These are your high priests of your religion.

It's disingenuous to assert that science is a religion with high priests. It is nothing but a lame attempt to assert that science has no greater relevance to reality than superstition.

Because they are severe Ideologues when it comes to macro-evolution.

"Ideologue" is an awfully big word to be used by someone who can't read without moving his lips.

You should look up the definition of the terms you use to indict others, to make sure that you have not already indicted yourself.

 

[LOki]

People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.

Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?

I have faith that air exists. I can't see it, but I believe that it exists and is keeping me alive.
I know there is a breeze today. The leaves are moving.
I can't see the wind, but I have faith it is there. I can see it's effect.

If your belief is founded upon and validated by evidence, then you are not exercising faith.

 

[LOki]

Well, I don't And neither should you.

The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.

I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
A theory is a hypothesis put to the test. If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law. I have faith that air exists even though I can't see it. I can see its effect on my lungs.
There I go again, breathing.... If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
We're good together, don't ya think?

You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to InDoctriNation again.​

 

[LOki]

I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
A theory is a hypothesis put to the test. If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law. I have faith that air exists even though I can't see it. I can see its effect on my lungs.
There I go again, breathing.... If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
We're good together, don't ya think?

You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.

The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.

You have a basic misunderstanding of what the terms "scientific theory" and "scientific law" mean.

We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative. If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.

This strawman assertion exposes your fundamental misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution.

 

[LOki]

I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
A theory is a hypothesis put to the test. If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law. I have faith that air exists even though I can't see it. I can see its effect on my lungs.
There I go again, breathing.... If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
We're good together, don't ya think?

You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.

Please enlighten me. What specific area of genetics validates the TOE? Can you please cite some peer reviewed studies?

Really? Do we have to start with everything that posits that phenotype is the result of genotype, and that an organism's genotype is determined neither by the organism's act of will or behavior? Is that where we have to begin? High-school biology class?

 

[LOki]

The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative. If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.

ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream? One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe. I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.

Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.

Either that, or the Intelligent Designer used common parts in the assembly of the wide range of species we see today. Not unlike the commonality of parts that make up Toyota's, Chevy's, and BMW's.

Funny you claim this is part of Evolutionary theory, because this is the very assertion I made that Loki said he was too pompous to answer because I was strawmanning.

I wasn't being pompous, you retard. And you were asserting a strawman.

So which is it, do me, the Monkey's and Watermelons share a common ancestor or not?

The evidence suggests that they do.

 

[LOki]

Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam. I get common descent, honest.
I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested. Before that it was guesswork, or theory.

Gravity might as well be a law, but technically, it is still a theory.

Without the bible, no one would have ever had the idea to talk about Adam and Eve, so to me, this calls into question the credibility of the bible itself

Funny, DNA studies have shown we all came from a single, female ancestor.

Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before you get all excited and tell me I don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is and what it means, let's just cut to the chase...

Most recent common ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"TMRCA of all living humans

Estimating time to MRCA of all humans based on the common genealogical usage of the term 'ancestor' is much harder and less accurate compared to estimates of Patrilineal and matrilineal MRCAs. Researchers must trace ancestry along both female and male parental lines, and rely on historical and archaeological records.

Depending on the survival of isolated lineages without admixture from modern migrations and taking into account long-isolated peoples, such as historical societies in central Africa, Australia and remote islands in the South Pacific, the human MRCA was generally assumed to have lived in the Upper Paleolithic period. With the advent of mathematical models and computer simulations, researchers now find that the MRCA of all humans lived remarkably recently, between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago."

Funny, this is when the Bible says there was a great flood and only a few people survived. One guy posted up that we were really stupid to believe that all the races could have come from this one dude in the boat.

"The paper suggests, "No matter the languages we speak or the color of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who labored to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu".[4]

An assumption that there are no isolated populations is questionable in view of the existence of various uncontacted peoples, who are suspected to have been isolated for many millennia, including the Sentinelese who have been isolated from the western world and also from the Asian mainland."



Then there was the guy a few posts ago that said modern discoveries don't coincide with the Bible. Hmmm.

You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means.

The TMRCA of all living humans is not the same as the TMRCA of all humans.

Sorry about your luck.

 

[UltimateReality]

It is another force, simply, that is stronger than gravity, and counter-acts it.

Assumptive language. No scientific experimental basis for this claim. Try again, homeslice.

 

[UltimateReality]

ALL THE USUAL USELESS DRIBBLE DELETED.

Then do it. Just don't submit some question-begging and/or special-pleading argument and insist that it is valid. Ok?

It has already been done and shown to you. You are just in TOTAL DENIAL. The argument is based on the same scientific method Lyell and Darwin used.

 

[UltimateReality]

You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.

Please enlighten me. What specific area of genetics validates the TOE? Can you please cite some peer reviewed studies?

Really? Do we have to start with everything that posits that phenotype is the result of genotype, and that an organism's genotype is determined neither by the organism's act of will or behavior? Is that where we have to begin? High-school biology class?

Question answered with a question. Nice avoidance technique.

 

[UltimateReality]

Gravity might as well be a law, but technically, it is still a theory.

Without the bible, no one would have ever had the idea to talk about Adam and Eve, so to me, this calls into question the credibility of the bible itself

Funny, DNA studies have shown we all came from a single, female ancestor.

Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before you get all excited and tell me I don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is and what it means, let's just cut to the chase...

Most recent common ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"TMRCA of all living humans

Estimating time to MRCA of all humans based on the common genealogical usage of the term 'ancestor' is much harder and less accurate compared to estimates of Patrilineal and matrilineal MRCAs. Researchers must trace ancestry along both female and male parental lines, and rely on historical and archaeological records.

Depending on the survival of isolated lineages without admixture from modern migrations and taking into account long-isolated peoples, such as historical societies in central Africa, Australia and remote islands in the South Pacific, the human MRCA was generally assumed to have lived in the Upper Paleolithic period. With the advent of mathematical models and computer simulations, researchers now find that the MRCA of all humans lived remarkably recently, between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago."

Funny, this is when the Bible says there was a great flood and only a few people survived. One guy posted up that we were really stupid to believe that all the races could have come from this one dude in the boat.

"The paper suggests, "No matter the languages we speak or the color of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who labored to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu".[4]

An assumption that there are no isolated populations is questionable in view of the existence of various uncontacted peoples, who are suspected to have been isolated for many millennia, including the Sentinelese who have been isolated from the western world and also from the Asian mainland."



Then there was the guy a few posts ago that said modern discoveries don't coincide with the Bible. Hmmm.

You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means.

The TMRCA of all living humans is not the same as the TMRCA of all humans.

Sorry about your luck.

This is about the most ignorant post you have made yet. And your point is what??? What we see is a bottleneck that coincides with a Biblical story. You're statement above is completely stupid and irrelevant. Is that the best you got?

I can't be the only one that sees through your condescending writing style that puffs you up and camo's your total lack of knowledge. You plagurize statements you have no understanding of. Example of Projection: Loki calling everyone else Intellectually Dishonest. Nice try, homeslice.

 

[daws101]

You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald. These are your high priests of your religion.

So, are you now expanding things to say that not only is evolution a religion, all of science is religion? That the seeming implication of this post.

Come on guys, do you really not know this stuff? Materialism is a world view just like Theism is. Evolutionary theory is component of Materialism. It is also safe to say that all Materialists believe in Evolution by default.

Materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

is there any empirical evidence to prove otherwise?.......no

 

[daws101]

If it were that simple there would be no atheists out there Many people with religious upbringing eventually become atheists once they get to know this world. Unfortunately, it works both ways -- many people that were raised atheists become religious.

I think people become atheists simply because they are better at building a consistent model of the world around them.

you're going straight to hell! blasphemer!

Now if you only understood what hell really is.

like you do!!!! again you miss the point.....there is no hell just as there is no heaven.

 

[ilia25]

Maybe it's less sinister than you think. Maybe he's just not stupid enough to fall into the chicken/egg argument you are referring to above.

It is no chicken/egg, the evolution goes from simple organisms to more complex. The simplest molecules were the result of random reactions.

What kind of scientific experiments can you cite that have been done on simple molecules randomly copying themselves?

Google RNA world. Actually don't bother, I just did:
Exploring Life's Origins: A Timeline of Life's Evolution

Anyway, the simplest replicating molecules probably were RNA. As for the proteins, any high school student should know that they cannot replicate themselves. Until last century, each protein on Earth was synthesized by RNA machines like those found in cells today. Therefore calculating the chances of a protein randomly forming, as Meyer does, is an exercise in stupidity -- we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened.

But Meyer does it anyway, because he needs to trick his audience into believing that the life appearing randomly is statistically impossible.

I'm confused. You say the simplest molecules PROBABLY were RNA. Then you say we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened.

You sure are confused. The event that everyone knows that is never happened is a spontaneous random formation of a complex protein. And the fact that Meyer was calculating the odds of that happening shows him as a dishonest person.

We have all reasons to believe that the life started when the first self replicating RNA appeared. It could have been created by a 30-40 nucleotides long RNA.

if proteins weren't randomly formed, and then functional proteins didn't exist, how did RNA know what to build after it started copying itself and turned into DNA?

Natural selection.

■ Statistically, the chance of forming even one “useful” RNA sequence can be shown to be essentially zero in the lifetime of the earth.

Well, so why doesn't he show it? Similar to the way Meyer showed that the random formation of complex protein is very unlikely?

Also "very unlikely" does not mean it never happens. There are 3 * 100 * 10^22 stars in the Universe. That is a lot of Earth like planets and a lot of chemical reactions that took place during last billions years. Plus, if there are/were other Universes, who knows how many of them -- so it is possible that we were just lucky. By this logic you can explain any miracle. For example, if in the next minute you will fall right through the concrete floor you are sting on, it might be because you were just lucky (or unlucky) to live on some planet of some universe at the moment when this freak accident occurred (because although it is very unlikely, it is possible according to Quantum Mechanics). Life on Earth could be such an unlikely accident.

 

[UltimateReality]

It is no chicken/egg, the evolution goes from simple organisms to more complex. The simplest molecules were the result of random reactions.



Google RNA world. Actually don't bother, I just did:
Exploring Life's Origins: A Timeline of Life's Evolution

Anyway, the simplest replicating molecules probably were RNA. As for the proteins, any high school student should know that they cannot replicate themselves. Until last century, each protein on Earth was synthesized by RNA machines like those found in cells today. Therefore calculating the chances of a protein randomly forming, as Meyer does, is an exercise in stupidity -- we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened.

But Meyer does it anyway, because he needs to trick his audience into believing that the life appearing randomly is statistically impossible.

I'm confused. You say the simplest molecules PROBABLY were RNA. Then you say we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened.

You sure are confused. The event that everyone knows that is never happened is a spontaneous random formation of a complex protein. And the fact that Meyer was calculating the odds of that happening shows him as a dishonest person.

We have all reasons to believe that the life started when the first self replicating RNA appeared. It could have been created by a 30-40 nucleotides long RNA.

if proteins weren't randomly formed, and then functional proteins didn't exist, how did RNA know what to build after it started copying itself and turned into DNA?

Natural selection.

■ Statistically, the chance of forming even one “useful” RNA sequence can be shown to be essentially zero in the lifetime of the earth.

Well, so why doesn't he show it? Similar to the way Meyer showed that the random formation of complex protein is very unlikely?

Also "very unlikely" does not mean it never happens. There are 3 * 100 * 10^22 stars in the Universe. That is a lot of Earth like planets and a lot of chemical reactions that took place during last billions years. Plus, if there are/were other Universes, who knows how many of them -- so it is possible that we were just lucky. By this logic you can explain any miracle. For example, if in the next minute you will fall right through the concrete floor you are sting on, it might be because you were just lucky (or unlucky) to live on some planet of some universe at the moment when this freak accident occurred (because although it is very unlikely, it is possible according to Quantum Mechanics). Life on Earth could be such an unlikely accident.

Multiple Universe Theory=Fairytale

First, you obviously didn't listen to Meyers argument because he never calculates probabilities of proteins. He calculates probabilities of amino acids forming. DNA contains instructions for building amino acids into functional proteins.

Second: "the relevance of ribozyme engineering to naturalistic theories of the origin of life is doubtful at best, primarily because of the necessity for intelligent intervention in the synthesis of the randomized RNA; then again in the selection of a few functional RNA molecules out of that mixture; then, finally, in the amplification of those few functional RNA molecules" [1]

Just because you rephrase it, it doesn't change your chicken/egg scenario and the stupidity of this argument. Let me pose a different question: if I have 150 bicycle parts lying on my living room floor and I have the instructions on how to assemble the bicycle parts into a working bicycle, is the bicycle more complex than the instructions? Are the chances of missing one part in the completed bicycle the same as missing one step in the instructions? Please help me understand how RNA became DNA became comples blueprint for complex Amino Acids became complex functional proteins. Other than fairy tale speculations, please cite a peer reviewed study that proposes experiments to test your hypothesis? I already listed an example of one above. At least the scientist were intellectually honest and admitted it required quite a bit of intelligent agent interference to work.

Here is a nice elementary school explanation...

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004535/amino_acids.html

What you present about RNA is nice story, but it lacks the serious arguments that make it totally implausible. If you want to continue living in fairytale land like Loki because you don't really want to question your faith in the TOE, then by all means, do so. But don't come on here acting like it has all been figured out because RNA world has some SERIOUS PROBLEMS. If you want to actually educate yourself on the plethora of reasons it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, you can start here...

[1] http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/stephen_meyer_responds_to_flet030901.html

 

[UltimateReality]

On more failure for random, positive mutations...

A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street: Experimentally Confirming the Limits to Darwinian Evolution - Evolution News & Views

 

[newpolitics]

On more failure for random, positive mutations...

A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street: Experimentally Confirming the Limits to Darwinian Evolution - Evolution News & Views

There is NO DEBATE about evolution. You want to make one, but its settled. Evolution properly explains our existence. Sorry! you missed the bus.