Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?

Well that is an obvious no But thanks for acknowledging someone designed these machines.

So I guess daws is not gonna explain the process of how molecular machines evolved.

More reading, less posting.

Evolution of DNA

Yes more reading less posting I said absent of conjecture. So explain how molecular machines evolved absent of conjecture..

 

[newpolitics]

Really Daws ? I have a series of questions to ask you I will go one at a time and if you can answer these questions absent of conjecture,I will believe you are a person of science and might even change my mind about evolution.

1.Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans ?
Remember no conjecture ,Explain how these Molecular Machines evolved.

If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?

That kinda reminds me of what the strong atheist and strong advocate for evolution Dawkins said. Things in nature only give the appearance to have been designed. I appeciate him acknowledging that things have the appearance of being designed. The obvious question is how does he know it's only an appearance,how does he know they were not designed ?

Simple. There is no evidence for a designer. Second, Dawkins does not 'know,' and never claims to know with absolute certainty. He simply sees no evidence for a creator and uses natural explanations to explain the phenomena we see. So far, its working a whole lot better than religion.

 

[UltimateReality]

If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?

That kinda reminds me of what the strong atheist and strong advocate for evolution Dawkins said. Things in nature only give the appearance to have been designed. I appeciate him acknowledging that things have the appearance of being designed. The obvious question is how does he know it's only an appearance,how does he know they were not designed ?

Simple. There is no evidence for a designer. Second, Dawkins does not 'know,' and never claims to know with absolute certainty. He simply sees no evidence for a creator and uses natural explanations to explain the phenomena we see. So far, its working a whole lot better than religion.

How do you figure?

 

[Youwerecreated]

If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?

That kinda reminds me of what the strong atheist and strong advocate for evolution Dawkins said. Things in nature only give the appearance to have been designed. I appeciate him acknowledging that things have the appearance of being designed. The obvious question is how does he know it's only an appearance,how does he know they were not designed ?

Simple. There is no evidence for a designer. Second, Dawkins does not 'know,' and never claims to know with absolute certainty. He simply sees no evidence for a creator and uses natural explanations to explain the phenomena we see. So far, its working a whole lot better than religion.

You are right Dawkins does not know but he admits the appearance is design. Does a natural, uintelligent process design things ?

 

[newpolitics]

That kinda reminds me of what the strong atheist and strong advocate for evolution Dawkins said. Things in nature only give the appearance to have been designed. I appeciate him acknowledging that things have the appearance of being designed. The obvious question is how does he know it's only an appearance,how does he know they were not designed ?

Simple. There is no evidence for a designer. Second, Dawkins does not 'know,' and never claims to know with absolute certainty. He simply sees no evidence for a creator and uses natural explanations to explain the phenomena we see. So far, its working a whole lot better than religion.

You are right Dawkins does not know but he admits the appearance is design. Does a natural, uintelligent process design things ?

You have no positive evidence for a designer. All you have is: it looks designed because that is familiar to us, because we have the capability to design things our own things, and compare what we design to the universe around us, and conclude that the universe was also designed. Our ability to design and implement technology and any similarity those technologies have to the universe is not evidence of a creator by a long shot. It is a biased perception based on our own capabilities as a species to design our own tools, technologies, which is merely an emergent and evolving property of our intellectual ability, which is a product of evolution, a natural process without design.

The appearance of a designer does not mean a designer necessarily created it. That is a subjective judgement, whether something has the appearance of a creator, so in a sense is a circular assessment. You already assume there is a creator, and then look for it in the universe, and anything that resembles order seems to validate your premise that there is a creator, hence you conclude there is a creator. That is circular. You have to take out your presupposition that there is a creator in your premise, then you can see the universe from a neutral standpoint. I don't think you are willing or able to do that. This is the problem with theologians. It seems as though their premise with respect to the universe subconsciously always contains God, and so they can never assess scientific claims on their own merit, because it always contradicts their premise, and so are merely always trying to contradict or disprove science as a way to vindicate their premise. I see this more as a psychological need to keep their belief system in check, because beliefs largely inform our identity, and their destruction is scary. Science threatens creationists, so they desperately find ways to counter it, however, they use illogical arguments because their need to do this is emotional, not logical. This is my opinion, obviously. Hence, the issue is psychological, not philosophical.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Simple. There is no evidence for a designer. Second, Dawkins does not 'know,' and never claims to know with absolute certainty. He simply sees no evidence for a creator and uses natural explanations to explain the phenomena we see. So far, its working a whole lot better than religion.

You are right Dawkins does not know but he admits the appearance is design. Does a natural, uintelligent process design things ?

You have no positive evidence for a designer. All you have is: it looks designed because that is familiar to us, because we have the capability to design things our own things, and compare what we design to the universe around us, and conclude that the universe was also designed. Our ability to design and implement technology and any similarity those technologies have to the universe is not evidence of a creator by a long shot. It is a biased perception based on our own capabilities as a species to design our own tools, technologies, which is merely an emergent and evolving property of our intellectual ability, which is a product of evolution, a natural process without design.

The appearance of a designer does not mean a designer necessarily created it. That is a subjective judgement, whether something has the appearance of a creator, so in a sense is a circular assessment. You already assume there is a creator, and then look for it in the universe, and anything that resembles order seems to validate your premise that there is a creator, hence you conclude there is a creator. That is circular. You have to take out your presupposition that there is a creator in your premise, then you can see the universe from a neutral standpoint. I don't think you are willing or able to do that. This is the problem with theologians. It seems as though their premise with respect to the universe subconsciously always contains God, and so they can never assess scientific claims on their own merit, because it always contradicts their premise, and so are merely always trying to contradict or disprove science as a way to vindicate their premise. I see this more as a psychological need to keep their belief system in check, because beliefs largely inform our identity, and their destruction is scary. Science threatens creationists, so they desperately find ways to counter it, however, they use illogical arguments because their need to do this is emotional, not logical. This is my opinion, obviously. Hence, the issue is psychological, not philosophical.

You have zero evidence for the origins of life through a natural process. There is no scientific evidence supporting the origins of life. There are far to many holes in the theory of evolution to take it serious.

The most foolish remark I have seen you make is say science threatens creationists

Oh and atleast Dawkins can detect design.

 

[newpolitics]

You are right Dawkins does not know but he admits the appearance is design. Does a natural, uintelligent process design things ?

You have no positive evidence for a designer. All you have is: it looks designed because that is familiar to us, because we have the capability to design things our own things, and compare what we design to the universe around us, and conclude that the universe was also designed. Our ability to design and implement technology and any similarity those technologies have to the universe is not evidence of a creator by a long shot. It is a biased perception based on our own capabilities as a species to design our own tools, technologies, which is merely an emergent and evolving property of our intellectual ability, which is a product of evolution, a natural process without design.

The appearance of a designer does not mean a designer necessarily created it. That is a subjective judgement, whether something has the appearance of a creator, so in a sense is a circular assessment. You already assume there is a creator, and then look for it in the universe, and anything that resembles order seems to validate your premise that there is a creator, hence you conclude there is a creator. That is circular. You have to take out your presupposition that there is a creator in your premise, then you can see the universe from a neutral standpoint. I don't think you are willing or able to do that. This is the problem with theologians. It seems as though their premise with respect to the universe subconsciously always contains God, and so they can never assess scientific claims on their own merit, because it always contradicts their premise, and so are merely always trying to contradict or disprove science as a way to vindicate their premise. I see this more as a psychological need to keep their belief system in check, because beliefs largely inform our identity, and their destruction is scary. Science threatens creationists, so they desperately find ways to counter it, however, they use illogical arguments because their need to do this is emotional, not logical. This is my opinion, obviously. Hence, the issue is psychological, not philosophical.

You have zero evidence for the origins of life through a natural process. There is no scientific evidence supporting the origins of life. There are far to many holes in the theory of evolution to take it serious.

The most foolish remark I have seen you make is say science threatens creationists

Oh and atleast Dawkins can detect design.

I make that remark, because your behavior, and creationists in general, are characterized not by asserting your own truth and proving it on its own merit (there is zero evidence for any god claims), but trying to assert its truth merely by poking holes in evolution or abiogensis. That is a sign of insecurity, which is indicative of being threatened. Hence, it is plausible to assume that creationists are threatened by science, and feel an emotional need to remove that threat, no matter how illogical their arguments in trying to do so. This is evidenced, to me, by the illogic in their arguments, which we see repeatedly, the most common usually being an argument of ignorance, or one from personal incredulity, or a strawman of evolution, etc...

You also have zero evidence for the origins of life via a creator, because you can not demonstrate that a god exists, or that this god created all things, or created humans. You have a book, which is not evidence of anything other than that a human wrote those words down at one point. All you have is an idea that is emotionally and existentially satisfying and offers you a piece of mind- that god created everything, and this is purportedly the same god that gives you an eternal afterlife as reward for belief in him. Hmmm... such a coincidence, however it is not a testament to its veracity.

By its very nature, abiogenesis is something that would provide little to no evidence, and you wouldn't expect it to. The entire landscape of the earth 3.5 billion years ago probably exists nowhere on our planets surface anymore, because it has been cycled below via plate tectonics and subducted into magma, where any evidence of the first microscopic cells would be destroyed. I could be wrong, but that seems likely, and that is not an excuse for a lack of evidence or a way to skirt the burden of proof, that is a fact that plate tectonics continually recycle our landscape. 3.5 billion years seems like plenty of time for an entire makeover. Abiogenesis remains a viable naturalistic explanation for the creation of self-replicating and self-organizing molecules into what we know as the first cell. Once you have that primitive cell or self-replicating entity, evolution takes over and the possibility of arriving where we are today is entirely feasible. There is no reason and no evidence to assert a supernatural being in abiogensis. Everything else is our existing universe is explainable through natural phenomena, so why should this be any different? It shouldn't. There exists a natural explanation. Just because there is no evidence right now or may never be, does not mean a creator is a better explanation or is more valid. That is a copout, made to serve your beliefs, not reality.

As to your last question, it is a flawed and unanswerable. I am inclined to say no, because design implies a purpose with a plan for a final product, in this case, I presume you are asserting that is us. There was no final product in evolution, us being that. Humans evolved in drought conditions where we almost went extinct. The reason we are so smart and social, which seem to go hand in hand, is because we need problem solving as well as cooperation to survive in such terrible conditions. The human species during this time, almost went extinct, evidenced by the relatively little genetic variation in our DNA across all humans as compared with the genetic variation found in other species. We all come from a relatively small amount of people (this is not testament to the veracity of adam and eve, so don't try that. it was more than two people).

 

[UltimateReality]

You have no positive evidence for a designer. All you have is: it looks designed because that is familiar to us, because we have the capability to design things our own things, and compare what we design to the universe around us, and conclude that the universe was also designed. Our ability to design and implement technology and any similarity those technologies have to the universe is not evidence of a creator by a long shot. It is a biased perception based on our own capabilities as a species to design our own tools, technologies, which is merely an emergent and evolving property of our intellectual ability, which is a product of evolution, a natural process without design.

The appearance of a designer does not mean a designer necessarily created it. That is a subjective judgement, whether something has the appearance of a creator, so in a sense is a circular assessment. You already assume there is a creator, and then look for it in the universe, and anything that resembles order seems to validate your premise that there is a creator, hence you conclude there is a creator. That is circular. You have to take out your presupposition that there is a creator in your premise, then you can see the universe from a neutral standpoint. I don't think you are willing or able to do that. This is the problem with theologians. It seems as though their premise with respect to the universe subconsciously always contains God, and so they can never assess scientific claims on their own merit, because it always contradicts their premise, and so are merely always trying to contradict or disprove science as a way to vindicate their premise. I see this more as a psychological need to keep their belief system in check, because beliefs largely inform our identity, and their destruction is scary. Science threatens creationists, so they desperately find ways to counter it, however, they use illogical arguments because their need to do this is emotional, not logical. This is my opinion, obviously. Hence, the issue is psychological, not philosophical.

You have zero evidence for the origins of life through a natural process. There is no scientific evidence supporting the origins of life. There are far to many holes in the theory of evolution to take it serious.

The most foolish remark I have seen you make is say science threatens creationists

Oh and atleast Dawkins can detect design.

I make that remark, because your behavior, and creationists in general, are characterized not by asserting your own truth and proving it on its own merit (there is zero evidence for any god claims), but trying to assert its truth merely by poking holes in evolution or abiogensis. That is a sign of insecurity, which is indicative of being threatened. Hence, it is plausible to assume that creationists are threatened by science, and feel an emotional need to remove that threat, no matter how illogical their arguments in trying to do so. This is evidenced, to me, by the illogic in their arguments, which we see repeatedly, the most common usually being an argument of ignorance, or one from personal incredulity, or a strawman of evolution, etc...

You also have zero evidence for the origins of life via a creator, because you can not demonstrate that a god exists, or that this god created all things, or created humans. You have a book, which is not evidence of anything other than that a human wrote those words down at one point. All you have is an idea that is emotionally and existentially satisfying and offers you a piece of mind- that god created everything, and this is purportedly the same god that gives you an eternal afterlife as reward for belief in him. Hmmm... such a coincidence, however it is not a testament to its veracity.

By its very nature, abiogenesis is something that would provide little to no evidence, and you wouldn't expect it to. The entire landscape of the earth 3.5 billion years ago probably exists nowhere on our planets surface anymore, because it has been cycled below via plate tectonics and subducted into magma, where any evidence of the first microscopic cells would be destroyed. I could be wrong, but that seems likely, and that is not an excuse for a lack of evidence or a way to skirt the burden of proof, that is a fact that plate tectonics continually recycle our landscape. 3.5 billion years seems like plenty of time for an entire makeover. Abiogenesis remains a viable naturalistic explanation for the creation of self-replicating and self-organizing molecules into what we know as the first cell. Once you have that primitive cell or self-replicating entity, evolution takes over and the possibility of arriving where we are today is entirely feasible. There is no reason and no evidence to assert a supernatural being in abiogensis. Everything else is our existing universe is explainable through natural phenomena, so why should this be any different? It shouldn't. There exists a natural explanation. Just because there is no evidence right now or may never be, does not mean a creator is a better explanation or is more valid. That is a copout, made to serve your beliefs, not reality.

As to your last question, it is a flawed and unanswerable. I am inclined to say no, because design implies a purpose with a plan for a final product, in this case, I presume you are asserting that is us. There was no final product in evolution, us being that. Humans evolved in drought conditions where we almost went extinct. The reason we are so smart and social, which seem to go hand in hand, is because we need problem solving as well as cooperation to survive in such terrible conditions. The human species during this time, almost went extinct, evidenced by the relatively little genetic variation in our DNA across all humans as compared with the genetic variation found in other species. We all come from a relatively small amount of people (this is not testament to the veracity of adam and eve, so don't try that. it was more than two people).

What is really funny NP is that most all of your claims about Creationists above could be applied to evolutionists. They discount any science that doesn't conform to their beloved theory. Their motivations are not scientific, but metaphysical. Because their real motivations are about denying the Creator, they work feverishly to find "scientific" evidence to support their materialistic worldview. We Creationists/ID Theorists admit we have bias and are always sensitive to overcoming it. Being aware of it gives us the perspective to do something about it when evaluating scientific data. But the truly sad thing is the Darwinists are totally ignorant to their bias, therefore, they are blind to things that should be catching their attention and directing their scientific pursuits in different directions based on the evidence. How can they even move forward or over come their bias if they are in total denial about it?

To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant - Amos Bronson Alcot

 

[newpolitics]

You have zero evidence for the origins of life through a natural process. There is no scientific evidence supporting the origins of life. There are far to many holes in the theory of evolution to take it serious.

The most foolish remark I have seen you make is say science threatens creationists

Oh and atleast Dawkins can detect design.

I make that remark, because your behavior, and creationists in general, are characterized not by asserting your own truth and proving it on its own merit (there is zero evidence for any god claims), but trying to assert its truth merely by poking holes in evolution or abiogensis. That is a sign of insecurity, which is indicative of being threatened. Hence, it is plausible to assume that creationists are threatened by science, and feel an emotional need to remove that threat, no matter how illogical their arguments in trying to do so. This is evidenced, to me, by the illogic in their arguments, which we see repeatedly, the most common usually being an argument of ignorance, or one from personal incredulity, or a strawman of evolution, etc...

You also have zero evidence for the origins of life via a creator, because you can not demonstrate that a god exists, or that this god created all things, or created humans. You have a book, which is not evidence of anything other than that a human wrote those words down at one point. All you have is an idea that is emotionally and existentially satisfying and offers you a piece of mind- that god created everything, and this is purportedly the same god that gives you an eternal afterlife as reward for belief in him. Hmmm... such a coincidence, however it is not a testament to its veracity.

By its very nature, abiogenesis is something that would provide little to no evidence, and you wouldn't expect it to. The entire landscape of the earth 3.5 billion years ago probably exists nowhere on our planets surface anymore, because it has been cycled below via plate tectonics and subducted into magma, where any evidence of the first microscopic cells would be destroyed. I could be wrong, but that seems likely, and that is not an excuse for a lack of evidence or a way to skirt the burden of proof, that is a fact that plate tectonics continually recycle our landscape. 3.5 billion years seems like plenty of time for an entire makeover. Abiogenesis remains a viable naturalistic explanation for the creation of self-replicating and self-organizing molecules into what we know as the first cell. Once you have that primitive cell or self-replicating entity, evolution takes over and the possibility of arriving where we are today is entirely feasible. There is no reason and no evidence to assert a supernatural being in abiogensis. Everything else is our existing universe is explainable through natural phenomena, so why should this be any different? It shouldn't. There exists a natural explanation. Just because there is no evidence right now or may never be, does not mean a creator is a better explanation or is more valid. That is a copout, made to serve your beliefs, not reality.

As to your last question, it is a flawed and unanswerable. I am inclined to say no, because design implies a purpose with a plan for a final product, in this case, I presume you are asserting that is us. There was no final product in evolution, us being that. Humans evolved in drought conditions where we almost went extinct. The reason we are so smart and social, which seem to go hand in hand, is because we need problem solving as well as cooperation to survive in such terrible conditions. The human species during this time, almost went extinct, evidenced by the relatively little genetic variation in our DNA across all humans as compared with the genetic variation found in other species. We all come from a relatively small amount of people (this is not testament to the veracity of adam and eve, so don't try that. it was more than two people).

What is really funny NP is that most all of your claims about Creationists above could be applied to evolutionists. They discount any science that doesn't conform to their beloved theory. The motivations are not scientific, but metaphysical. Because their real motivations are about denying the Creator, they work feverishly to find "scientific" evidence to support their materialistic worldview. We Creationists/ID Theorists admit we have bias and are always sensitive to overcoming it, but the truly sad thing is the Darwinists are totally ignorant to their bias, therefore, they are blind to things that should be catching their attention and directing their scientific pursuits in different directions based on evidence.

To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant - Amos Bronson Alcot

There is no evidence for a god, therefore it is not considered in science as having explanatory power. There is no bias, as you claim, there is simply no evidence. This is REALLY simple. You're asserting that scientists motivations are metaphysical makes no sense because the methodology employed by scientists, namely the Scientific Method, doesn't allow for this, because by definition, nothing metaphysical would show evidence in the physical realm. It is you that is asserting an additional being to the universe. The burden of proof falls on you to prove a creator. You can not do that, therefore it is not taken as an explanation of the things we see.

 

[newpolitics]

There is no pre-supposition inherent in the scientific method. Scientists may have their own presuppositions individually, but the scientific method will bear that out every time. That is what makes it so beautiful.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Why are libs so insecure about "creationism?" Who cares. It's what some people believe. It doesn't fucking hurt you. If you believe that an asteroid hit the planet and somehow life formed, why the fuck would that be a big thing to me? Get the fuck over yourself libs. You're like the vain asshole who spends half the fucking day looking at himself in a mirror.

 

[newpolitics]

Why are libs so insecure about "creationism?" Who cares. It's what some people believe. It doesn't fucking hurt you. If you believe that an asteroid hit the planet and somehow life formed, why the fuck would that be a big thing to me? Get the fuck over yourself libs. You're like the vain asshole who spends half the fucking day looking at himself in a mirror.

Because dickheads, not unlike yourself, are trying to change school curriculums and brainwash children into doubting science, logic, and reason, all based on religious fervor which provides zero evidence for any of its supernatural claims. In other words, it is nonsensical bullshit established to vindicate insecure christians of their faith, which is a direct violation of the first amendment, in case you've forgotten what country you live in. I'm going to go look in the mirror... you should try it. You might be able to see how much of an asshole you are.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Why are libs so insecure about "creationism?" Who cares. It's what some people believe. It doesn't fucking hurt you. If you believe that an asteroid hit the planet and somehow life formed, why the fuck would that be a big thing to me? Get the fuck over yourself libs. You're like the vain asshole who spends half the fucking day looking at himself in a mirror.

Because dickheads, not unlike yourself, are trying to change school curriculums and brainwash children into doubting science, logic, and reason, all based on religious fervor which provides zero evidence for any of its supernatural claims. In other words, it is nonsensical bullshit established to vindicate insecure christians of their faith, which is a direct violation of the first amendment, in case you've forgotten what country you live in. I'm going to go look in the mirror... you should try it. You might be able to see how much of an asshole you are.

I'm trying to change school ciriculums? That's f'ing retarded. When I was in school, I learned a lot about "the theory of evolution" and I moved on. And I learned about it in some detail. I do remember vague mentions that others believed in creationism (don't even know if it was called that). It wasn't a big fucking deal either. I just took it as some people are trying to explain the origins of our existence and that's natural. Next time, don't put words in my mouth cocksucker.

And the truth is that assholes like you are the ones trying toe suppress free speech. You don't even want the fucking mention of creationism in schools and you want the big bang theory and evolution and whatever else taught as facts; something that fucking defies science you pansy ass bitch butt hugging fuck face.

 

[newpolitics]

Why are libs so insecure about "creationism?" Who cares. It's what some people believe. It doesn't fucking hurt you. If you believe that an asteroid hit the planet and somehow life formed, why the fuck would that be a big thing to me? Get the fuck over yourself libs. You're like the vain asshole who spends half the fucking day looking at himself in a mirror.

Because dickheads, not unlike yourself, are trying to change school curriculums and brainwash children into doubting science, logic, and reason, all based on religious fervor which provides zero evidence for any of its supernatural claims. In other words, it is nonsensical bullshit established to vindicate insecure christians of their faith, which is a direct violation of the first amendment, in case you've forgotten what country you live in. I'm going to go look in the mirror... you should try it. You might be able to see how much of an asshole you are.

I'm trying to change school ciriculums? That's f'ing retarded. When I was in school, I learned a lot about "the theory of evolution" and I moved on. And I learned about it in some detail. I do remember vague mentions that others believed in creationism (don't even know if it was called that). It wasn't a big fucking deal either. I just took it as some people are trying to explain the origins of our existence and that's natural. Next time, don't put words in my mouth cocksucker.

And the truth is that assholes like you are the ones trying toe suppress free speech. You don't even want the fucking mention of creationism in schools and you want the big bang theory and evolution and whatever else taught as facts; something that fucking defies science you pansy ass bitch butt hugging fuck face.

Those were a lot of big words. I'm not sure if I understand. So, you're saying I'm a pansy ass bitch, and a butt hugging fuck face? Whoa. That sounds bad. Do you think I should go see a doctor? I think I'm covered under Obamacare.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Because dickheads, not unlike yourself, are trying to change school curriculums and brainwash children into doubting science, logic, and reason, all based on religious fervor which provides zero evidence for any of its supernatural claims. In other words, it is nonsensical bullshit established to vindicate insecure christians of their faith, which is a direct violation of the first amendment, in case you've forgotten what country you live in. I'm going to go look in the mirror... you should try it. You might be able to see how much of an asshole you are.

I'm trying to change school ciriculums? That's f'ing retarded. When I was in school, I learned a lot about "the theory of evolution" and I moved on. And I learned about it in some detail. I do remember vague mentions that others believed in creationism (don't even know if it was called that). It wasn't a big fucking deal either. I just took it as some people are trying to explain the origins of our existence and that's natural. Next time, don't put words in my mouth cocksucker.

And the truth is that assholes like you are the ones trying toe suppress free speech. You don't even want the fucking mention of creationism in schools and you want the big bang theory and evolution and whatever else taught as facts; something that fucking defies science you pansy ass bitch butt hugging fuck face.

Those were a lot of big words. I'm not sure if I understand. So, you're saying I'm a pansy ass bitch, and a butt hugging fuck face? Whoa. That sounds bad. Do you think I should go see a doctor? I think I'm covered under Obamacare.

Since you clearly are only a troll, I'll be setting you to ignore now.

 

[newpolitics]

I'm trying to change school ciriculums? That's f'ing retarded. When I was in school, I learned a lot about "the theory of evolution" and I moved on. And I learned about it in some detail. I do remember vague mentions that others believed in creationism (don't even know if it was called that). It wasn't a big fucking deal either. I just took it as some people are trying to explain the origins of our existence and that's natural. Next time, don't put words in my mouth cocksucker.

And the truth is that assholes like you are the ones trying toe suppress free speech. You don't even want the fucking mention of creationism in schools and you want the big bang theory and evolution and whatever else taught as facts; something that fucking defies science you pansy ass bitch butt hugging fuck face.

Those were a lot of big words. I'm not sure if I understand. So, you're saying I'm a pansy ass bitch, and a butt hugging fuck face? Whoa. That sounds bad. Do you think I should go see a doctor? I think I'm covered under Obamacare.

Since you clearly are only a troll, I'll be setting you to ignore now.

cool. peace.

 

[konradv]

Well that is an obvious no But thanks for acknowledging someone designed these machines.

So I guess daws is not gonna explain the process of how molecular machines evolved.

More reading, less posting.

Evolution of DNA

Yes more reading less posting I said absent of conjecture. So explain how molecular machines evolved absent of conjecture..

Conjecture? I'd say an explanation based on the Laws of Chemistry. You keep asking for how life could have started minus creation. It's been offered, but you don't seem to have the courtesy to debunk it scientifically. You just ask for more. It's like the fossil record, no amount of evidence will ever be enough because you're apparently intellectually dishonest.

 

[bobgnote]

Look at THIS! 346 pages, where some of the creationists are still posting! I just got to get me some "Crationists," given creationist fucktards managed to keep Darwin out of curriculum, until 1958, when the Soviets launched Sputnik. The more I read, from creationists, the more I realize it's time to rally, with the players and post some Carvey vids and history.

We re-green, or we lose the human habitat, to global climate change. See all the fires, droughts, floods, extreme storms, and coming sea level rise? You creationists are burning fossil fuels and whacking trees with chainsaws, with zero guilt or remorse, using you shit-rants about "God," to justify you awesome, destructive ignorance.

Some of you are Christians, lacking a Pope, so go see how Benedict now claims those ignorant of AGW are lacking religion, vis-a-vis atheism. Nice try, poopleman.

I have to subscribe to this thread, so I'm just checking in.

 

[Youwerecreated]

More reading, less posting.

Evolution of DNA

Yes more reading less posting I said absent of conjecture. So explain how molecular machines evolved absent of conjecture..

Conjecture? I'd say an explanation based on the Laws of Chemistry. You keep asking for how life could have started minus creation. It's been offered, but you don't seem to have the courtesy to debunk it scientifically. You just ask for more. It's like the fossil record, no amount of evidence will ever be enough because you're apparently intellectually dishonest.

What do you think conjecture is ? Yes I have ,you would have to believe in miracles to believe that only left handed amino acids connected to form life. You would have to believe in miracles to believe molecular machines slowly evolved. There are many more examples as well that has been covered. Yet this question you use laws for an explanation and not something that can be repeated by man. You give only an opinion of what is observed. The same problem exist's for cells you can observe them forming but can't duplicate the process so you really don't know how they form. You sure as heck can't explain how they evolved.

 

[UltimateReality]

I make that remark, because your behavior, and creationists in general, are characterized not by asserting your own truth and proving it on its own merit (there is zero evidence for any god claims), but trying to assert its truth merely by poking holes in evolution or abiogensis. That is a sign of insecurity, which is indicative of being threatened. Hence, it is plausible to assume that creationists are threatened by science, and feel an emotional need to remove that threat, no matter how illogical their arguments in trying to do so. This is evidenced, to me, by the illogic in their arguments, which we see repeatedly, the most common usually being an argument of ignorance, or one from personal incredulity, or a strawman of evolution, etc...

You also have zero evidence for the origins of life via a creator, because you can not demonstrate that a god exists, or that this god created all things, or created humans. You have a book, which is not evidence of anything other than that a human wrote those words down at one point. All you have is an idea that is emotionally and existentially satisfying and offers you a piece of mind- that god created everything, and this is purportedly the same god that gives you an eternal afterlife as reward for belief in him. Hmmm... such a coincidence, however it is not a testament to its veracity.

By its very nature, abiogenesis is something that would provide little to no evidence, and you wouldn't expect it to. The entire landscape of the earth 3.5 billion years ago probably exists nowhere on our planets surface anymore, because it has been cycled below via plate tectonics and subducted into magma, where any evidence of the first microscopic cells would be destroyed. I could be wrong, but that seems likely, and that is not an excuse for a lack of evidence or a way to skirt the burden of proof, that is a fact that plate tectonics continually recycle our landscape. 3.5 billion years seems like plenty of time for an entire makeover. Abiogenesis remains a viable naturalistic explanation for the creation of self-replicating and self-organizing molecules into what we know as the first cell. Once you have that primitive cell or self-replicating entity, evolution takes over and the possibility of arriving where we are today is entirely feasible. There is no reason and no evidence to assert a supernatural being in abiogensis. Everything else is our existing universe is explainable through natural phenomena, so why should this be any different? It shouldn't. There exists a natural explanation. Just because there is no evidence right now or may never be, does not mean a creator is a better explanation or is more valid. That is a copout, made to serve your beliefs, not reality.

As to your last question, it is a flawed and unanswerable. I am inclined to say no, because design implies a purpose with a plan for a final product, in this case, I presume you are asserting that is us. There was no final product in evolution, us being that. Humans evolved in drought conditions where we almost went extinct. The reason we are so smart and social, which seem to go hand in hand, is because we need problem solving as well as cooperation to survive in such terrible conditions. The human species during this time, almost went extinct, evidenced by the relatively little genetic variation in our DNA across all humans as compared with the genetic variation found in other species. We all come from a relatively small amount of people (this is not testament to the veracity of adam and eve, so don't try that. it was more than two people).

What is really funny NP is that most all of your claims about Creationists above could be applied to evolutionists. They discount any science that doesn't conform to their beloved theory. The motivations are not scientific, but metaphysical. Because their real motivations are about denying the Creator, they work feverishly to find "scientific" evidence to support their materialistic worldview. We Creationists/ID Theorists admit we have bias and are always sensitive to overcoming it, but the truly sad thing is the Darwinists are totally ignorant to their bias, therefore, they are blind to things that should be catching their attention and directing their scientific pursuits in different directions based on evidence.

To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant - Amos Bronson Alcot

There is no evidence for a god, therefore it is not considered in science as having explanatory power. There is no bias, as you claim, there is simply no evidence. This is REALLY simple. You're asserting that scientists motivations are metaphysical makes no sense because the methodology employed by scientists, namely the Scientific Method, doesn't allow for this, because by definition, nothing metaphysical would show evidence in the physical realm. It is you that is asserting an additional being to the universe. The burden of proof falls on you to prove a creator. You can not do that, therefore it is not taken as an explanation of the things we see.

You totally miss the point entirely. Forget the Design argument for a moment. Since their metaphysical beliefs demand they support the TOE, their science is skewed by prejudice. Everything that fits the TOE is kept. Everything that doesn't is thrown out or explained away. The so-called science is an assembly of "evidence" that fits. No doubt you can't see this because even you are unaware of your own bias.