Creationists

[daws101]

I love science and think it compliments the Bible very well

Everything compliments the Bible very well, even things like murder -- and that is why it remains ever popular. So science does not disprove the Bible (it is impossible), what science does is making the Bible irrelevant. It is not needed anymore to explain what we see around us, where we came form. And we certainly don't need it to make this world a better place to live for all people.

This is a very sad thing considering what we see happening all around us. Prophecy being fulfilled and you and people who think like you don't even see it.

another bullshit statement! that same statement has been spewed by believers since it was made up!
to be to be a truly prophetic event. that event would have to EXACTLY MATCH THE PROPHECY NONE EVER HAVE .

 

[daws101]

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.

Look up a few terms and you see there definitely is a hell but it's not what you think it is.

Start with the terms sheol and hades.

DODGE, i KNOW THOSE TERMS.
YOU OR ANY BODY ELSE HAVE NO EXPERIENCE OR FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE THAT HELL EXISTS
WHEN YOU SAY YOU DO YOU'RE PILING IT HIGH AND DEEP!

The best discription of hell is : hell is the absence of reason...

 

[UltimateReality]

Really? You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means, and that means my statement above is completely stupid and irrelevant? You are deeply retarded.

Wow, predictable is your middle name. Obviously you missed this little statement from the post before your totally predictable response... too funny. Now who is the mental midget?

UltimateReality said, "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..."

Right. Then you proceeded to demonstrate that you didn't know what who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means; the irony was not at all lost for the rest of us.

Also this: Population

Have you not been reading anything I've said?? Obviously not by the retarded video you posted. I am not a young earth Creationists. I am here arguing ID theory, not Noah and the ark. I do throw in some curious SCIENCE facts that fit with the Biblical accounts ocasionally to show the bias that exists against any science that fits.

 

[UltimateReality]

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

What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?

You're asking what's the proof that life started?

I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.

The question is basic, it's embarrassing.



Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?



What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

What is your evidence that all living organisms are related ?

To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.

Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?

Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.

Wow, for someone who pretends to be so intelligent, it is funny to me you missed the context of the Abiogenesis question. I knew exactly what he meant. What is your evidence that Abiogenesis occurred through a naturistic process? The answer is NONE.

Using DNA to prove all organisms are related is laughable. If you mean we all have the same basic design, then you would be correct. However, if we apply Lyell's and Darwin's scientific methodologies to the question of DNA, we have to study modern information theory. DNA is a quaternary digital code. If we attempt to find the evidence for functional digital code in the world around us, i.e., digital instructions or machine code for assembling complex machines, we always find the source is an intelligent agent. Lyell said if you want to know what happened in the distant past then you study the present. In the present, the source of micro machines, information copying and retrieval digital systems, and digital code is always a "mind" or intelligent agent. We don't find complex computer programs arising from mistakes in the basic 0's and 1's. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that NS could produce the complex machine code we find in DNA. And you accuse Christians of believing in fairytales? HA!

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're asking what's the proof that life started?

I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.

The question is basic, it's embarrassing.



Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?



What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.



To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.



Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.

You can also add that poof God created things as they are and gave them the ability to adapt. Darwin and many since have made erroneous conclusions ever since seeing these natural occurrences that was put into motion by the creator.

Which you have zero evidence for. As I said before, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Well it's this simple Woyzeck,you can believe everything is a product of chance and coincidence or you can believe everything came about by a designer,your choice.

There is evidence of design there is zero evidence of everything happening on it's own with no one guiding the creation of the universe and life.

 

[UltimateReality]

What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?

You're asking what's the proof that life started?

I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.

The question is basic, it's embarrassing.



Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?



What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.



To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.

Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?

Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.

Nope what is your evidence that life through a natural process started spontaneously ? What is embarrassing is that some men of science would believe it was possible.

Funny, no one bothered to read this or comment.

The RNA World: A Critique - Origins & Design 17:1. Mills, Gordon and Kenyon, Dean

The funny thing is they claim Materialism isn't a religion. Yet, when faced with total scientific evidence which invalidate their beliefs, they just ignore it and continue to claim RNA world explains everything basing their belief on... you guessed it... faith!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

That life is a natural process that is reliant upon the interactions of observable/testable/verifiable natural processes for its maintenance and propagation.

Evidence such as the emergence of nylon-eating bacteria, ring species, and the fossil record.

The absence of evidence that there is a designer.

Without asserting absolute congruency, the common elements they share in metabolic biochemical and reproductive processes.

What do you mean by "validate these questions"?

sorry those are just faulty conclusions because they come from faulty presuppositions.

Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify my "faulty presuppositions."

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."

You really don't want to use the fossil record as evidence for gradualism trust me.

You didn't ask me about gradualism, did you? I believe the actual issue was macro-evolution, yes?

Douche.

Yes I have identified your faulty presuppositions by the questions I have asked You.

Of course because the fossil record is a problem for your theory because of the lack of evidence for gradualism.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're asking what's the proof that life started?

I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.

The question is basic, it's embarrassing.



Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?



What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.



To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.



Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.

You can also add that poof God created things as they are and gave them the ability to adapt. Darwin and many since have made erroneous conclusions ever since seeing these natural occurrences that was put into motion by the creator.

Which you have zero evidence for. As I said before, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Hey, zero evidence doesn't stop scientists from believing in fairytales like the Multiple Universe fantasy. A theory soley invented as a feeble attempt to poke holes in the fact that the fine tuning of our universe screams intelligent designer. "It's like someone monkeyed with the physics." I never understood why it would be easier to believe in an infinite number of random universes than it would to just believe in an Alien Being (alien to us) who is infinite and exists outside of matter, space, time and energy (just like another one of the supposed multiple universes) I really don't see how one argument in this instance is more viable than the other.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Similarity does not prove different groups of organisms are related.

You didn't ask for proof, you disingenuous retard, you asked for evidence.

I have presented it many times we have diversity within each family of organisms because of genetic drift that cause small changes within a population.

No one is disputing the existence or role of genetic drift, you retard.

Proof comes from evidence nitwit.

That is right and I have explained to you why there are changes in small populations and it is through genetic drift not mutations.

The retard is not I.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You asked about abiogenesis, the start of life, not spontaneous generation.



Why doesn't it?



Your evidence to disprove evolution is a concept derived from the theory of evolution?

From a biological stance we are similar because we are made up of similar substances but our genes carry vastly different genetic information. Your side is reaching by assuming we are related because we are made up of similar substances. That also is circular reasoning that your side complains about creationist that we use circular reasoning.

Our genes are not similar, only our 'substances' are. Whatever that is meant to mean. But our DNA is 98% identical to that of a chimps and other monkeys.

So I really don't get your point. You can say we're not related all you want, but genetic similarities exist, even if you want to ignore it.

Don't keep spewing that lie that our DNA is 98% identical to a chimp that you have read. They mapped the genome the closest they can come up with so far is 95% similar. And they are finding more and more differences eventually the number will rise.

Even if the number don't rise the information that you seem to ignore is vastly different between a human and a chimp.

2 OR 5 % of the almost 4 billion base pairs of DNA is a huge difference get it ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The theory of punctuated equilibrium was started because the cambrian organisms appeared suddenly not gradually,that fits with the creation model. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one in the same.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution, and in no way invalidates gradualism ... at least according to those who proposed punctuated equilibrium.

Not if you believe in gradualism and that is what your theory teaches.

Think will you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

Look up a few terms and you see there definitely is a hell but it's not what you think it is.

Start with the terms sheol and hades.

DODGE, i KNOW THOSE TERMS.
YOU OR ANY BODY ELSE HAVE NO EXPERIENCE OR FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE THAT HELL EXISTS
WHEN YOU SAY YOU DO YOU'RE PILING IT HIGH AND DEEP!

The best discription of hell is : hell is the absence of reason...

Wrong, world of the dead,in other words the grave.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wow, predictable is your middle name. Obviously you missed this little statement from the post before your totally predictable response... too funny. Now who is the mental midget?

UltimateReality said, "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..."

Right. Then you proceeded to demonstrate that you didn't know what who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means; the irony was not at all lost for the rest of us.

Also this: Population

Have you not been reading anything I've said?? Obviously not by the retarded video you posted. I am not a young earth Creationists. I am here arguing ID theory, not Noah and the ark. I do throw in some curious SCIENCE facts that fit with the Biblical accounts ocasionally to show the bias that exists against any science that fits.

To be honest I believbe in ID and creationism.

I don't know for sure how long creation took and how long the earth has existed ,but I believe without a doubt that the universe and life did not happen by chance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're asking what's the proof that life started?

I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.

The question is basic, it's embarrassing.



Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?



What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.



To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.



Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.

Nope what is your evidence that life through a natural process started spontaneously ? What is embarrassing is that some men of science would believe it was possible.

Funny, no one bothered to read this or comment.

The RNA World: A Critique - Origins & Design 17:1. Mills, Gordon and Kenyon, Dean

The funny thing is they claim Materialism isn't a religion. Yet, when faced with total scientific evidence which invalidate their beliefs, they just ignore it and continue to claim RNA world explains everything basing their belief on... you guessed it... faith!!

Yes that article presents too many questions and problems for them to repond to.

 

[HUGGY]

Right. Then you proceeded to demonstrate that you didn't know what who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means; the irony was not at all lost for the rest of us.

Also this: Population

Have you not been reading anything I've said?? Obviously not by the retarded video you posted. I am not a young earth Creationists. I am here arguing ID theory, not Noah and the ark. I do throw in some curious SCIENCE facts that fit with the Biblical accounts ocasionally to show the bias that exists against any science that fits.

To be honest I believbe in ID and creationism.

I don't know for sure how long creation took and how long the earth has existed ,but I believe without a doubt that the universe and life did not happen by chance.

All of the science...All of the dogma crushed by truth and reason... All of the willfull lies by the churches...and you have NO doubt. Not any? None?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqZOYgUolC4]Green Day - American Idiot [Official Music Video] - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ilia25]

What went wrong and still is going wrong people are choosing satans world over God's world.

What is telling is that you do not dare to tell who's at fault here -- no matter ho many times I asked. Is it the people themselves consciously choose to follow satan? Or if satan blinded them against their will, why God allowed this?

Some people see sin as innocent ,there is nothing wrong with it so that is how the conscience gets warped and people don't even realize that is happening.

Why most people don't realize? Because God created them this way, or because God failed to show them, or because God allows satan to blind them?

Your side can't even explain or verify where this conscience came from and they can't explain this voice inside us teaching us right from wrong.

Of course it can.

 

[ilia25]

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?

For starters macro-evolution,it has never been observed.

So what, there is more than enough indirect evidence. This is not a faith, this is the best explanation of what we see -- which still can be wrong.

 

[LOki]

sorry those are just faulty conclusions because they come from faulty presuppositions.

Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify my "faulty presuppositions."

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."

You really don't want to use the fossil record as evidence for gradualism trust me.

You didn't ask me about gradualism, did you? I believe the actual issue was macro-evolution, yes?

Douche.

Yes I have identified your faulty presuppositions by the questions I have asked You.

No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."

Of course because the fossil record is a problem for your theory because of the lack of evidence for gradualism.

Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.

Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."

 

[LOki]

Similarity does not prove different groups of organisms are related.

You didn't ask for proof, you disingenuous retard, you asked for evidence.

I have presented it many times we have diversity within each family of organisms because of genetic drift that cause small changes within a population.

No one is disputing the existence or role of genetic drift, you retard.

Proof comes from evidence nitwit.

Not for Creationists, retard.

That is right and I have explained to you why there are changes in small populations and it is through genetic drift not mutations.

The retard is not I.

Yes. I am aware that you insist that among all the various ways that a difference in genotype might arise, it is only those differences in genotype caused by mutation that cannot possibly lead to differences in phenotype.

You're so deeply retarded.

 

[LOki]

The theory of punctuated equilibrium was started because the cambrian organisms appeared suddenly not gradually,that fits with the creation model. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one in the same.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution, and in no way invalidates gradualism ... at least according to those who proposed punctuated equilibrium.

Not if you believe in gradualism and that is what your theory teaches.

Think will you.

Since the theory of punctuated equilibrium is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution and in no way invalidates gradualism, what's your point?