Creationists

[jillian]

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.

ironic post is ironic.

 

[daws101]

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!

bi passing the meaningless bible yammering....
you don't know shit about face book then conversations there are just as uncivilized has here...

 

[daws101]

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.

it's there by several posters on several pages in this thread .do your own work
the I don't remember ploy ain't cutting it...
you just hate the answer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

asked and answered several times....

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

it's there by several posters on several pages in this thread .do your own work
the I don't remember ploy ain't cutting it...
you just hate the answer.

This is code for I don't remember what I copied and pasted that I think answered these questions.

 

[daws101]

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

it's there by several posters on several pages in this thread .do your own work
the I don't remember ploy ain't cutting it...
you just hate the answer.

This is code for I don't remember what I copied and pasted that I think answered these questions.

wrong as always! it's the straight shit..prove me wrong, go back through this thread and see how many times your "common ancestor" question has been answered..

 

[Youwerecreated]

it's there by several posters on several pages in this thread .do your own work
the I don't remember ploy ain't cutting it...
you just hate the answer.

This is code for I don't remember what I copied and pasted that I think answered these questions.

wrong as always! it's the straight shit..prove me wrong, go back through this thread and see how many times your "common ancestor" question has been answered..

What was my common ancestor question ?

 

[daws101]

 

[Youwerecreated]

I knew many women in science that were extremely intelligent but Hollie is not one of them.

What was my common ancestor question ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let me help you out Daws.

We can prove descent with humans through genetic markers. We can't prove descent between two groups where there are too many gaps. Example,chimp and human. Going by evolutionist numbers there is atleast a difference in 30 million base pairs of DNA.

The reason we can prove descent in humans is because there are no gaps in base pairs of DNA in humans. But 30 million you are projecting because of some similarity. We can prove descent in animals through the same method.

 

[Hollie]

I knew many women in science that were extremely intelligent but Hollie is not one of them.

What was my common ancestor question ?

Its false to claim that you were ever in science. Creation science has never been science.

Just because you have had your ass handed to you by a girl doesn't mean you're totally emasculated. Not totally.

 

[daws101]

Let me help you out Daws.

We can prove descent with humans through genetic markers. We can't prove descent between two groups where there are too many gaps. Example,chimp and human. Going by evolutionist numbers there is atleast a difference in 30 million base pairs of DNA.

The reason we can prove descent in humans is because there are no gaps in base pairs of DNA in humans. But 30 million you are projecting because of some similarity. We can prove descent in animals through the same method.

your help is unnecessary and not factual, but it is amusing...
besides I thought you were "blowing" us off..
backpedal much?

 

[daws101]

Let me help you out Daws.

We can prove descent with humans through genetic markers. We can't prove descent between two groups where there are too many gaps. Example,chimp and human. Going by evolutionist numbers there is atleast a difference in 30 million base pairs of DNA.

The reason we can prove descent in humans is because there are no gaps in base pairs of DNA in humans. But 30 million you are projecting because of some similarity. We can prove descent in animals through the same method.

another declarative not based in fact statement.
why? if you take OUT WE can't prove (or the god did it factor) what are we left with.
two related species humans and chimps who's dna is 98% the same.
THAT IS NOT SOME SIMILARITIES THAT'S MOST.

 

[UltimateReality]

asked and answered several times....

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

it's there by several posters on several pages in this thread .do your own work
the I don't remember ploy ain't cutting it...
you just hate the answer.

My two questions have never been answered. Nice try with the old "several posts" back trick. I have searched high and low on the internet and the answer does not exist, so it was a trick question. Do you think it is kind of stupid that evolutionists can't delineate a starting point for their theory? Do you think it is science to constantly talk about a common ancestor that is a myth, because no one has ever definitively made any predictions about the mythical common ancestor?

 

[UltimateReality]

Let me help you out Daws.

We can prove descent with humans through genetic markers. We can't prove descent between two groups where there are too many gaps. Example,chimp and human. Going by evolutionist numbers there is atleast a difference in 30 million base pairs of DNA.

The reason we can prove descent in humans is because there are no gaps in base pairs of DNA in humans. But 30 million you are projecting because of some similarity. We can prove descent in animals through the same method.

So the common ancestry evolutionists are always referring to is a sham???? Who is he/it/she? Why can't they use all the dna evidence and supposed transitional fossils to at least make a prediction about what species this was that we all somehow arose from? DAWS, your stupid theory is a myth and you are stupid for buying into the myth.

Now this is the part where someone should chime in and state that my argument is a strawman, because evolutionary theory really doesn't say we all came from one species if we go far enough back. Then I will ask, "then what does evolutionary theory really say about common ancestry?" and then crickets will chirp and no one will cut and paste up and I wiill be right back where I started before I asked the question.

 

[daws101]

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

it's there by several posters on several pages in this thread .do your own work
the i don't remember ploy ain't cutting it...
You just hate the answer.

my two questions have never been answered. Nice try with the old "several posts" back trick. I have searched high and low on the internet and the answer does not exist, so it was a trick question. Do you think it is kind of stupid that evolutionists can't delineate a starting point for their theory? Do you think it is science to constantly talk about a common ancestor that is a myth, because no one has ever definitively made any predictions about the mythical common ancestor?

so instead of checking thread that has the answers, you went the long way round to avoid it, am i right?

 

[daws101]

let me help you out daws.

We can prove descent with humans through genetic markers. We can't prove descent between two groups where there are too many gaps. Example,chimp and human. Going by evolutionist numbers there is atleast a difference in 30 million base pairs of dna.

The reason we can prove descent in humans is because there are no gaps in base pairs of dna in humans. But 30 million you are projecting because of some similarity. We can prove descent in animals through the same method.

so the common ancestry evolutionists are always referring to is a sham???? Who is he/it/she? Why can't you use all your dna evidence and supposed transitional fossils to at least make a prediction about what species this was that we all somehow arose from? Your stupid theory is a myth and you are stupid for buying into the myth.

from the stupid school of retorts!

 

[UltimateReality]

I knew many women in science that were extremely intelligent but Hollie is not one of them.

What was my common ancestor question ?

Its false to claim that you were ever in science. Creation science has never been science.

Just because you have had your ass handed to you by a girl doesn't mean you're totally emasculated. Not totally.

Why are you still posting here lying plagiarizer?

 

[UltimateReality]

While that cartoon is a nice characterature, this is more what comes to my mind when I think of Hollie...

 

[Hollie]

I knew many women in science that were extremely intelligent but Hollie is not one of them.

What was my common ancestor question ?

Its false to claim that you were ever in science. Creation science has never been science.

Just because you have had your ass handed to you by a girl doesn't mean you're totally emasculated. Not totally.

Why are you still posting here lying plagiarizer?

Angry Wannabes seems to define the humiliated fundie crowd.

Creationism has failed. ID has failed. You folks in the charlatan crowd need a different set of smoke and mirrors... or is it gods and demons?

Just copy and paste more altered / falsified material from the ICR. It interesting to watch you destroy your own credibility. It's what the gods want.

 

[Hollie]

I knew many women in science that were extremely intelligent but Hollie is not one of them.

What was my common ancestor question ?

Its false to claim that you were ever in science. Creation science has never been science.

Just because you have had your ass handed to you by a girl doesn't mean you're totally emasculated. Not totally.

Why are you still posting here lying plagiarizer?

Angry Wannabes seems to define the humiliated fundie crowd.

Creationism has failed. ID has failed. You folks in the charlatan crowd need a different set of smoke and mirrors... or is it gods and demons?

Just copy and paste more altered / falsified material from the ICR. It's interesting to watch you destroy your own credibility. It's what the gods want.