Creationists

[Hollie]

That was weak NP.

No. It wasn't. Like your creationist cohort, you're really not well equipped to respond without the ability to cut and paste from creationist websites.

Shut up stupid.

That was your most compelling post to date.

 

[daws101]

1981 to 1985

probably when most of these ignorant kids were born.

says the most ignorant person on this thread..
Only an obsessive asshat woud fuck up a vacation here in california in june at the beach by texting ...your wife must be proud!

i get a little down time and my wife and daughters don't wait for daddy to lead them around by the nose.

thanks for proving my point!

 

[UltimateReality]

Ironic post is ironic.

If you had followed this thread, you would note that while YWC is driven by his belief in Creation, he can actually process information and respond to opposing viewpoints. Holleee just keeps posting the same thing over and over (she isn't the first and she won't be the last to stop by and dump the rehearsed anti-Christian canned attacks and arguments), which is totally irrelevant to the discussions at hand.

Your frustration is the result of an inability to defend crestionist claims to the supernatural. It's telling that you earlier objected to "attacks" against creationism and later, "attacks" against ID which you hoped to separate from both Christianity and creationism.

The problem you have is that you feel your claims are insulated from criticism or critique. When you post in a public discussion board, its naive to think that your opinions (and creationism / ID is only opinion) won't be subject to scrutiny.

Please continue. I want to hear more.

 

[UltimateReality]

Another false claim previously proven wrong a few posts back with substantiated info easily verifiable on the internet, one publication of which has been around since 1926, pre-dating the Creationists and ID Theory movements.



So what of Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time? Will you discount his theories because he was a fundie? You ignorance of history is appalling. I should have stopped responding to you when I said I was going to before. You are so blind that it really reminds me of arguing with a drunk when I was a cop. Both are exercises in futility. I will waste no more time with you since you cannot even present, or follow, a logical thought. Have a nice fundamentalist Materialist purposeless existence.

YWC, I would suggest you don't entertain this any longer as well. Dust off your feet and head to the next town.

Yeah I pretty much did that with DAWS and Hollie is next on the list. The problem is neither one know enough to see the legitimacy of our questions put to them. It seems most of the time only montrovant and konradv are coherent and understand the questions and answers given them.

They can even be civil most of the time but Hollie and Daws forget it, they have an ax to grind for some reason and they are stuck on taking shots rather then focus on legitimate issues that are presented to them. I think mostly is they don';t have a clue how to respond.

and you'd be wrong, the only thing you done with me is amuse me.
when you post a legitimate issue I'll answer the best I can, so far all you've done is yammer dogma and misrepresent science.

Why don't you take a shot at just my two above. I always hear evolutionists say their theories don't apply to abiogenisis and they always talk about the "common ancestor". How far back is this common ancestor? Since we have so many transitional fossils, can't we trace back and at least get some idea of what it looks like? I have searched the internet but can't find any evolutionist that has answers to these questions, even though they state both principles as facts.

 

[daws101]

DAWS, where you been? You missed all the fun with your fundie evolutionist sister Holly over the weekend.

I have a life....been reading this thread....your asses must be sore from all that kicking...

That is right theatre don't pay well when your not good enough so you have no computer and can't get to one until work or school eh.

WRONG AGAIN I do very VERY WELL so well in fact I make my own hours and turn down gigs for lack of time to do them.
never drink while posting asshat!

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, you're clearly right. The earth is 10,000 years old, man walked with the dinosaurs, and evolution is a satanic myth right from the pits of hell.



I figured out when you first appeared on this board that you weren't capable of anything but regurgitation of sources whose limitations you don't even understand. So, i treat you in the same way I do the crazy religious dude screaming on the street corner.

Really,then maybe you will step up and answer these questions.

1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?

2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?

3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but it is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?

4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?

5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all of them after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?

These are questions I asked and they go ignored why ?

While they are at it, I still want to know where they consider abiogenisis to end and evolution to start? I also want to know what level of complexity the mythical common ancestor is believed to have.

Me to, but most of them don't realize it took chemical evolution for it to happen and there to be no designer.

So really it is the same natural process they are clinging to but have no evidence of it ever taking place.

 

[UltimateReality]

No. It wasn't. Like your creationist cohort, you're really not well equipped to respond without the ability to cut and paste from creationist websites.

Shut up stupid.

That was your most compelling post to date.

I wholeheartedly agree with you for once!!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Another false claim previously proven wrong a few posts back with substantiated info easily verifiable on the internet, one publication of which has been around since 1926, pre-dating the Creationists and ID Theory movements.



So what of Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time? Will you discount his theories because he was a fundie? You ignorance of history is appalling. I should have stopped responding to you when I said I was going to before. You are so blind that it really reminds me of arguing with a drunk when I was a cop. Both are exercises in futility. I will waste no more time with you since you cannot even present, or follow, a logical thought. Have a nice fundamentalist Materialist purposeless existence.

YWC, I would suggest you don't entertain this any longer as well. Dust off your feet and head to the next town.

Yeah I pretty much did that with DAWS and Hollie is next on the list. The problem is neither one know enough to see the legitimacy of our questions put to them. It seems most of the time only montrovant and konradv are coherent and understand the questions and answers given them.

They can even be civil most of the time but Hollie and Daws forget it, they have an ax to grind for some reason and they are stuck on taking shots rather then focus on legitimate issues that are presented to them. I think mostly is they don';t have a clue how to respond.

and you'd be wrong, the only thing you done with me is amuse me.
when you post a legitimate issue I'll answer the best I can, so far all you've done is yammer dogma and misrepresent science.

I already blew you off don't waste my time quoting me I am about to to do the same thing to your nearest ancestor Hollie.

 

[UltimateReality]

I have a life....been reading this thread....your asses must be sore from all that kicking...

That is right theatre don't pay well when your not good enough so you have no computer and can't get to one until work or school eh.

WRONG AGAIN I do very VERY WELL so well in fact I make my own hours and turn down gigs for lack of time to do them.
never drink while posting asshat!

Oh no, here we go. Folks in cardboard, umm, I mean, glass houses should not throw stones.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can't have a civil conversation with them So I chose to get a shot or two into them before I bid them farewell.

 

[daws101]

With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin this week, people around the world are celebrating his role as the father of evolutionary theory. Events and press releases are geared, in part, to combat false claims made by some who would discredit the theory.

One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.

As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.



These animals sound wild, but the fossil record — which is far from complete — is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander."

At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving.

Here is a short list of transitional fossils documented by Prothero and that add to the mountain of evidence for Charles Darwin's theory. A lot of us relate most to fossils of life closely related to humans, so the list focuses on mammals and other vertebrates, including dinosaurs.

Mammals, including us

•It is now clear that the evolutionary tree for early and modern humans looks more like a bush than the line represented in cartoons. All the hominid fossils found to date form a complex nexus of specimens, Prothero says, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis, found in 2001 and 2002, threw everyone for a loop because it walked upright 7 million years ago on two feet but is quite chimp-like in its skull size, teeth, brow ridges and face. It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but many paleoanthropologists will remain unsure until more fossils are found. Previously, the earliest ancestor of our Homo genus found in the fossil record dated back 6 million years.
•-Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.
•Manatees, also called sea cows, are marine mammals that have flippers and a down-turned snout for grazing in warm shallow waters. In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica. Along with skull features like manatees (such as horizontal tooth replacement, like a conveyor belt), it also had heavy ribs for ballast, showing that it also had an aquatic lifestyle, like hippos.
•Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans.
•The Dimetrodon was a big predatory reptile with a tail and a large sail or fin-back. It is often mistaken for a dinosaur, but it's actually part of our mammalian lineage and more closely related to mammals than reptiles, which is seen in its specialized teeth for stabbing meat and skull features that only mammals and their ancestors had. It probably moved around like a lizard and had a jawbone made of multiple bones, like a reptile.
Dinosaurs and birds

•The classic fossil of Archaeopteryx, sometimes called the first bird, has a wishbone (fully fused clavicle) which is only found in modern birds and some dinosaurs. But it also shows impressions from feathers on its body, as seen on many of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. Its body, capable of flight or gliding, also had many of dinosaur features — teeth (no birds alive today have teeth), a long bony tail (tails on modern birds are entirely feathers, not bony), long hind legs and toes, and a specialized hand with long bony fingers (unlike modern bird wings in which the fingers are fused into a single element), Prothero said.
•Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds.
•Yinlong is a small bipedal dinosaur which shares features with two groups of dinosaurs known to many kids — ceratopsians, the beaked dinosaurs like Triceratops, and pachycephalosaurs, known for having a thick dome of bone in their skulls protecting their brains. Yinlong has the thick rostral bone that is otherwise unique to ceratopsians dinosaurs, and the thick skull roof found in the pachycephalosaurs.
•Anchisaurus is a primitive sauropod dinosaur that has a lot of lizard-like features. It was only 8 feet long (the classic sauropods later on could be more than 100-feet long), had a short neck (sauropods are known for their long necks, while lizards are not), and delicate limbs and feet, unlike dinosaurs. Its spine was like that of a sauropod. The early sauropods were bipedal, while the latter were stood on all fours. Anchisaurus was probably capable of both stances, Prothero wrote.
Fish, frogs, turtles

•Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals.
•Last year, scientists announced the discovery of Gerobatrachus hottorni, aka the frogamander. Technically, it's a toothed amphibian, but it shows the common origins of frogs and salamanders, scientists say, with a wide skull and large ear drum (like frogs) and two fused ankle bones as seen in salamanders.
•A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell but its back was basically bare of armor. Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts. In addition, the roof of its mouth, along with the upper and lower jaws, was equipped with teeth, which the researchers said is a primitive feature for turtles whose mugs are now tipped with beaks but contain no teeth.


Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | LiveScience

You are predictable Daws.

Characteristics

The specimen found consisted of a skull and several bone fragments, namely, the shoulder, wrist, and fin, among others. According to evolutionists, the Tiktaalik was an intermediate form between sea and land animals. This conclusion was reached because of Tiktaalik's similarities to both fish and tetrapods. For instance, it is assumed to have had the scales and gills of a fish and yet also to have had tetrapod limbs and lungs, as well as a mobile neck. Its alleged half-fish and half-tetrapod characteristics included limb bones and joints which resembled those of a tetrapod but had fins rather than toes on the "feet".

For all these features, however, it is clear that Tiktaalik was simply a fish; its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and other fish, such as the Coelacanth, were also thought to be "missing links" until they were discovered to be some form of fish. It has been placed by evolutionists alongside Archaeopteryx, but they fail to see that neither animal was a transitional form; archaeopteryx was a full bird, tiktaalik was a full fish

Tiktaalik - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science


Reconstruction of Tiktaalik

The above image is from the National Science Foundation, a U.S. Government agency to fund science. While reconstructions such as this one appear to show what the species in question really looked like, the true appearance of Tiktaalik is unknown. For example, the difference in appearance between the head and the "shoudler" area is speculative. So is the implication in the image that Tiktaalik walked on land. It is just as likely that it used its robust fins to "walk" on the sea floor, helping it to catch prey in an alligator-like manner. While the tail is included in the image, the tail and rear fins have not been found.

Tiktaalik - Conservapedia

Can we expect that the biological scientists at creationwiki are actually grocery store baggers who contribute to "creationwiki"?

It's just so typical that the "scientists" representing creationist claims have no education or training in the subject matter they write about.

I suppose that when contributing to a fundie creationist website, signing an agreement not to publish material in conflict with creationist propaganda tends to limit the quality of the contributor.

it does not matter to ywc that his source material is not credible,
the contributors (lol!) have yet to produce any evidence at all to counter the actual evidence presented by paleontologists, geologists..etc...he is however very adept at pulling thing out of his ass, tossing them at the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No science talk they only Bloviate.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are predictable Daws.

Characteristics

The specimen found consisted of a skull and several bone fragments, namely, the shoulder, wrist, and fin, among others. According to evolutionists, the Tiktaalik was an intermediate form between sea and land animals. This conclusion was reached because of Tiktaalik's similarities to both fish and tetrapods. For instance, it is assumed to have had the scales and gills of a fish and yet also to have had tetrapod limbs and lungs, as well as a mobile neck. Its alleged half-fish and half-tetrapod characteristics included limb bones and joints which resembled those of a tetrapod but had fins rather than toes on the "feet".

For all these features, however, it is clear that Tiktaalik was simply a fish; its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and other fish, such as the Coelacanth, were also thought to be "missing links" until they were discovered to be some form of fish. It has been placed by evolutionists alongside Archaeopteryx, but they fail to see that neither animal was a transitional form; archaeopteryx was a full bird, tiktaalik was a full fish

Tiktaalik - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science


Reconstruction of Tiktaalik

The above image is from the National Science Foundation, a U.S. Government agency to fund science. While reconstructions such as this one appear to show what the species in question really looked like, the true appearance of Tiktaalik is unknown. For example, the difference in appearance between the head and the "shoudler" area is speculative. So is the implication in the image that Tiktaalik walked on land. It is just as likely that it used its robust fins to "walk" on the sea floor, helping it to catch prey in an alligator-like manner. While the tail is included in the image, the tail and rear fins have not been found.

Tiktaalik - Conservapedia

Can we expect that the biological scientists at creationwiki are actually grocery store baggers who contribute to "creationwiki"?

It's just so typical that the "scientists" representing creationist claims have no education or training in the subject matter they write about.

I suppose that when contributing to a fundie creationist website, signing an agreement not to publish material in conflict with creationist propaganda tends to limit the quality of the contributor.

it does not matter to ywc that his source material is not credible,
the contributors (lol!) have yet to produce any evidence at all to counter the actual evidence presented by paleontologists, geologists..etc...he is however very adept at pulling thing out of his ass, tossing them at the wall and seeing what sticks.

You would not know credible if it bit you in the butt. Mr. theatre man, you better stick to what you know.

 

[UltimateReality]

No science talk they only Bloviate.

It bugs me I get frustrated enough that my sinful nature comes out and I resort to put downs and name calling. Too bad I'm not a post modernistic humanist and all GOOD on the inside. Then I wouldn't be subject to such failures.

The internet always comes with that bravado, since it is impersonal. I guarantee if we all posted up links to our facebook pages, the conversations would take a VERY CIVIL turn.

Romans 7 (NIV):

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

 

[daws101]

Yeah I pretty much did that with DAWS and Hollie is next on the list. The problem is neither one know enough to see the legitimacy of our questions put to them. It seems most of the time only montrovant and konradv are coherent and understand the questions and answers given them.

They can even be civil most of the time but Hollie and Daws forget it, they have an ax to grind for some reason and they are stuck on taking shots rather then focus on legitimate issues that are presented to them. I think mostly is they don';t have a clue how to respond.

and you'd be wrong, the only thing you done with me is amuse me.
when you post a legitimate issue I'll answer the best I can, so far all you've done is yammer dogma and misrepresent science.

Why don't you take a shot at just my two above. I always hear evolutionists say their theories don't apply to abiogenisis and they always talk about the "common ancestor". How far back is this common ancestor? Since we have so many transitional fossils, can't we trace back and at least get some idea of what it looks like? I have searched the internet but can't find any evolutionist that has answers to these questions, even though they state both principles as facts.

asked and answered several times....

 

[UltimateReality]

NP, what of our discussion of Meyers?

DAWS, do you have insight to my two questions?

 

[daws101]

Yeah I pretty much did that with DAWS and Hollie is next on the list. The problem is neither one know enough to see the legitimacy of our questions put to them. It seems most of the time only montrovant and konradv are coherent and understand the questions and answers given them.

They can even be civil most of the time but Hollie and Daws forget it, they have an ax to grind for some reason and they are stuck on taking shots rather then focus on legitimate issues that are presented to them. I think mostly is they don';t have a clue how to respond.

and you'd be wrong, the only thing you done with me is amuse me.
when you post a legitimate issue I'll answer the best I can, so far all you've done is yammer dogma and misrepresent science.

I already blew you off don't waste my time quoting me I am about to to do the same thing to your nearest ancestor Hollie.

awww... are you gonna cry too?
put your man pants on..

 

[UltimateReality]

and you'd be wrong, the only thing you done with me is amuse me.
when you post a legitimate issue I'll answer the best I can, so far all you've done is yammer dogma and misrepresent science.

Why don't you take a shot at just my two above. I always hear evolutionists say their theories don't apply to abiogenisis and they always talk about the "common ancestor". How far back is this common ancestor? Since we have so many transitional fossils, can't we trace back and at least get some idea of what it looks like? I have searched the internet but can't find any evolutionist that has answers to these questions, even though they state both principles as facts.

asked and answered several times....

Please point me to the page number. I don't remember this.

 

[daws101]

That is right theatre don't pay well when your not good enough so you have no computer and can't get to one until work or school eh.

WRONG AGAIN I do very VERY WELL so well in fact I make my own hours and turn down gigs for lack of time to do them.
never drink while posting asshat!

Oh no, here we go. Folks in cardboard, umm, I mean, glass houses should not throw stones.

projecting? air conditioning salesman.....

 

[daws101]

Can we expect that the biological scientists at creationwiki are actually grocery store baggers who contribute to "creationwiki"?

It's just so typical that the "scientists" representing creationist claims have no education or training in the subject matter they write about.

I suppose that when contributing to a fundie creationist website, signing an agreement not to publish material in conflict with creationist propaganda tends to limit the quality of the contributor.

it does not matter to ywc that his source material is not credible,
the contributors (lol!) have yet to produce any evidence at all to counter the actual evidence presented by paleontologists, geologists..etc...he is however very adept at pulling thing out of his ass, tossing them at the wall and seeing what sticks.

You would not know credible if it bit you in the butt. Mr. theatre man, you better stick to what you know.

really? nice dodge ....show me a fossil that has god's bar code on it.