Creationists

[koshergrl]

How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.

Well if you consider the evidence for design against the evidence of an unintelligent natural process creating everything we see,mathematics will be more supportive of a designer rather then this natural process you subscribe to.

That's ridiculous. There's no reason to believe that is true. There is nothing in mathematics that supports supernaturalism.

Tell that to these guys, who are Orthodox:

Nova ScienceNow

 

[daws101]

This is the line of thinking that created macro-evolution.

guess you never under stood the concept that keeping your mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool...rather than opening it and leaving no doubt ....works!

Projecting.

ironic coming from someone who is a master at saying stupid shit!

 

[Youwerecreated]

What the fuck do YOU know, about "most people," you downie? Eat shit and write something intelligible, you miserable queer, who should have been aborted.

You are an english major trying to discuss science You have not said anything of substance at all. If you want to get into the specifics of science do so otherwise your resposes are not worthy of a reply.

Youwerecornholed, I didn't tell you anything, about my academic background, which did wrap up, at a major university. If you want to suck off your butt-buddy URanallyretarded, you don't need to get in a pissing contest, with a skunk, which is what you two queers went and did.

Eat shit, BITCHES. I guarantee, we wouldn't have any conversations. What you are is butt-buddies, backing each other up, since you like how your heads feel, up each others' assholes. What the fuck do YOU want to write about, queers? I checked in, you got oppositional, you are blow-buddies from some kind of downie-boy zone, so EAT SHIT.

I learned about stupid people, like you, so I don't like to talk to you, in person. I think we know you don't get to talk to real people. When I meet fucktards, like you, there is no further wordy business. You either fuck off, or you don't. If you DON'T, then we see who the cops believe.

I love internet courage. I guarantee you if we were having this conversation in person, you wouldn't be talking this way. Grow up.

Eat shit, you miserable cocksucker. You guarantee WHAT, punkhole?

You prove our case with every post

 

[Youwerecreated]

How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.

Well if you consider the evidence for design against the evidence of an unintelligent natural process creating everything we see,mathematics will be more supportive of a designer rather then this natural process you subscribe to.

That's ridiculous. There's no reason to believe that is true. There is nothing in mathematics that supports supernaturalism.

No, but it supports a designer, and mathematics does not support naturalism. The biggest problem for your side is coming up with a viable theory for the origins question. Only the brainwashed believes in any current theory concerning origins.

 

[daws101]

Have you ever stopped to ponder what a cruel joke evolution has played on us with our minds? I mean how bogus that natural selection of random mutations resulted in us having this need to belong. I mean, really, why should we be concerned about meaning in life? Why do we wonder what our purpose is? Why is it so hard to accept, deep in are atheistic bones that we have NO PURPOSE? Why does that haunt us so bad? Since we are one in a trillion, we really are just accidental. None of us should be here according to the odds but here we sit, really for no reason other than a neat little process called evolution. It doesn't matter that we are here and it won't matter when we are gone. Another species will take our place. And many years from now, if you are one of the lucky ones, someone might dig up your bones and proudly display them in a museum. But the you that is you will be long gone by then and who cares, really? Nature has truly played a cruel trick on his, evolving us to the point where deep inside we really think it matters if we live or die. It doesn't. In two generations, if you don't do something noteworthy, no one will even remember your name. In 3 generations no one will care at all about you other than being ticked off maybe that you contributed to global warming with your miserable 70 or 80 years belching out the filth that is carbon dioxide. And why should it matter if only matter... matters? So when life starts to get you down, just remember, the pain will be over soon. You will be over soon. And in the blink of an eye later, no one will care whether you lived or died, laughed or cried.

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." Macbeth, William Shakespeare

lol! is this totally out of context or what.
obviously you've never seen or read Macbeth..

the only realavent part is: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

 

[daws101]

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?

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.

you first, I need a good laugh!
BTW those sooo called questions of yours have been asked and answered in this thread many many times, either you will not accept the answers or dementia is setting in.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well if you consider the evidence for design against the evidence of an unintelligent natural process creating everything we see,mathematics will be more supportive of a designer rather then this natural process you subscribe to.

That's ridiculous. There's no reason to believe that is true. There is nothing in mathematics that supports supernaturalism.

Tell that to these guys, who are Orthodox:

Nova ScienceNow

Great post.

 

[daws101]

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.

that's not what Dawkins said you are intentionally misinterpreting to support your fantasy.
the appearance of design is not evidence of god driven anything.

 

[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.

you first, I need a good laugh!
BTW those sooo called questions of yours have been asked and answered in this thread many many times, either you will not accept the answers or dementia is setting in.

No it hasn't. The thing is you swallow explanations hook,line and sinker not having the ability to know from factual evidence or evidence based on conjecture.

Tell me in your own words how molecular machines evolved ?

 

[daws101]

therefore, the argument that, for instance, string theory and multiverses are entirely unfounded because it is only based on math, is fallacious.

and there we have it. You making a metaphysical claim and then trying to say that math is the reason it could be true. Yes, and math is the reason god could be true too. How does it feel here in the boat with me?

how has math ever pointed to god? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.

what would be the mathematical symbol for god?

 

[daws101]

And there we have it. You making a metaphysical claim and then trying to say that math is the reason it could be true. Yes, and math is the reason God could be true too. How does it feel here in the boat with me?

How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.

Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.

what the fuck!
When we treat of sexual selection we shall see that primeval man, or rather some early progenitor of man, probably first used his voice in producing true musical cadences, that is in singing, as do some of the gibbon-apes at the present day; and we may conclude from a widely-spread analogy, that this power would have been especially exerted during the courtship of the sexes,--would have expressed various emotions, such as love, jealousy, triumph,--and would have served as a challenge to rivals. It is, therefore, probable that the imitation of musical cries by articulate sounds may have given rise to words expressive of various complex emotions."[1]
This theory of a musical protolanguage has been revived and re-discovered repeatedly, often without attribution to Darwin.

 

[daws101]

What are you 15 years old ?does your momma know you talk like this on the internet tough guy ?

I was not taught creationism nor do I think ultimatereality was either. For one he is an ID advocate I am the creationist. The University of Arizona does not have that class that I am aware of we both attended the bear down University. I worked in a lab for 11 years then I grew up.

Many people educated in the sciences do not agree with theories atheist hold dear.

If you were believable, I'd say you got into a PAC-12 U, but you'd have to take off, after the first week of classes. Since your English-US isn't good enough for high schools, what the fuck are you doing, telling me you got into UA? Don't they have any standards? Dunces down, for Mr.Hugh, looks like.

What the fuck do YOU know, about "most people," you downie? Eat shit and write something intelligible, you miserable queer, who should have been aborted.

I love internet courage. I guarantee you if we were having this conversation in person, you wouldn't be talking this way. Grow up.

and you'd be wrong as always ...

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

that's not what Dawkins said you are intentionally misinterpreting to support your fantasy.
the appearance of design is not evidence of god driven anything.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9P8RUkVYXk]Richard Dawkins shocks world by admitting strong evidence for God exists! - YouTube[/ame]



Richard Dawkins put his statement about biology right there on page one: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

He enlarges on this thought: “We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}

Dawkins added that if anyone saw a machine on some other planet, he would know life had existed on that planet because machines are designed by intelligent beings. {p.2.} I must add, there are many molecular machines in living things. Their moving parts work together to do the work of every cell. Most of us would interpret all this as telling us that living things really were designed. Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. He goes on to use imagination, speculation, philosophy, and his wonderful story telling ability to undercut the evidence."

Appearance of Design

Crick and many others agree with Dawkins.

You were saying ?

 

[daws101]

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.

you first, I need a good laugh!
BTW those sooo called questions of yours have been asked and answered in this thread many many times, either you will not accept the answers or dementia is setting in.

No it hasn't. The thing is you swallow explanations hook,line and sinker not having the ability to know from factual evidence or evidence based on conjecture.

Tell me in your own words how molecular machines evolved ?

asked and answerd .
what would you now about my abilities? you consistently make erroneous assumptions on what is fact and what is not, the very pinnacle of hubris.
I'll repeat this again, you have no credible evidence of the existence of Id or god.
therefore EVERYTHING YOU POST IS CONJECTURE AND SPECULATION NOT FACT.

 

[daws101]

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.

that's not what Dawkins said you are intentionally misinterpreting to support your fantasy.
the appearance of design is not evidence of god driven anything.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9P8RUkVYXk]Richard Dawkins shocks world by admitting strong evidence for God exists! - YouTube[/ame] Richard Dawkins put his statement about biology right there on page one: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

He enlarges on this thought: “We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}

Dawkins added that if anyone saw a machine on some other planet, he would know life had existed on that planet because machines are designed by intelligent beings. {p.2.} I must add, there are many molecular machines in living things. Their moving parts work together to do the work of every cell. Most of us would interpret all this as telling us that living things really were designed. Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. He goes on to use imagination, speculation, philosophy, and his wonderful story telling ability to undercut the evidence."

Appearance of Design

Crick and many others agree with Dawkins.

You were saying ?

Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. hey aren't you the guy that yammers on about similarity not being proof.....is that only when it works against you...BULLSHIT show me Dawkins actual statement not some asshole's interpretation .

 

[Youwerecreated]

that's not what Dawkins said you are intentionally misinterpreting to support your fantasy.
the appearance of design is not evidence of god driven anything.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9P8RUkVYXk]Richard Dawkins shocks world by admitting strong evidence for God exists! - YouTube[/ame] Richard Dawkins put his statement about biology right there on page one: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

He enlarges on this thought: “We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}

Dawkins added that if anyone saw a machine on some other planet, he would know life had existed on that planet because machines are designed by intelligent beings. {p.2.} I must add, there are many molecular machines in living things. Their moving parts work together to do the work of every cell. Most of us would interpret all this as telling us that living things really were designed. Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. He goes on to use imagination, speculation, philosophy, and his wonderful story telling ability to undercut the evidence."

Appearance of Design

Crick and many others agree with Dawkins.

You were saying ?

Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. hey aren't you the guy that yammers on about similarity not being proof.....is that only when it works against you...BULLSHIT show me Dawkins actual statement not some asshole's interpretation .

You are in denial he admitted there is a strong case for God he is not the only one. Daws it just takes time to realize and admit you are simply wrong. If you have watched the video it gives you the details of the debate but you didn't did you ?

 

[daws101]

Richard Dawkins shocks world by admitting strong evidence for God exists! - YouTube Richard Dawkins put his statement about biology right there on page one: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

He enlarges on this thought: “We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}

Dawkins added that if anyone saw a machine on some other planet, he would know life had existed on that planet because machines are designed by intelligent beings. {p.2.} I must add, there are many molecular machines in living things. Their moving parts work together to do the work of every cell. Most of us would interpret all this as telling us that living things really were designed. Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. He goes on to use imagination, speculation, philosophy, and his wonderful story telling ability to undercut the evidence."

Appearance of Design

Crick and many others agree with Dawkins.

You were saying ?

Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. hey aren't you the guy that yammers on about similarity not being proof.....is that only when it works against you...BULLSHIT show me Dawkins actual statement not some asshole's interpretation .

You are in denial he admitted there is a strong case for God he is not the only one. Daws it just takes time to realize and admit you are simply wrong. If you have watched the video it gives you the details of the debate but you didn't did you ?

yes I did .
when dawkins said :living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. that ends the debate, the rest is intentional misinterpreting....
your wish that I was wrong is just one more symptom of your desperate hubris.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. hey aren't you the guy that yammers on about similarity not being proof.....is that only when it works against you...BULLSHIT show me Dawkins actual statement not some asshole's interpretation .

You are in denial he admitted there is a strong case for God he is not the only one. Daws it just takes time to realize and admit you are simply wrong. If you have watched the video it gives you the details of the debate but you didn't did you ?

yes I did .
when dawkins said :living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. that ends the debate, the rest is intentional misinterpreting....
your wish that I was wrong is just one more symptom of your desperate hubris.

Ok now for the question. If things appear to be designed for a purpose how would dawkinks know they were not designed for a purpose ?

 

[daws101]

You are in denial he admitted there is a strong case for God he is not the only one. Daws it just takes time to realize and admit you are simply wrong. If you have watched the video it gives you the details of the debate but you didn't did you ?

yes I did .
when dawkins said :living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. that ends the debate, the rest is intentional misinterpreting....
your wish that I was wrong is just one more symptom of your desperate hubris.

Ok now for the question. If things appear to be designed for a purpose how would dawkinks know they were not designed for a purpose ?

really? since there is no evidence of a designer there is no reason to think there is.
ever heard the term form follows fuction?

 

[Youwerecreated]

yes I did .
when dawkins said :living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. that ends the debate, the rest is intentional misinterpreting....
your wish that I was wrong is just one more symptom of your desperate hubris.

Ok now for the question. If things appear to be designed for a purpose how would dawkinks know they were not designed for a purpose ?

really? since there is no evidence of a designer there is no reason to think there is.
ever heard the term form follows fuction?

So you know more then dawkins ? he already admitted they appear to have been created,is that not reason to question his presuppositions ? But it is funny you can't bring yourself to admit the evidence for design.