Creationists

[Hollie]

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 ?

Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?

There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s). Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?

I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?

How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.

DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.

I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.

Your assignment of god-like qualities to Dawkins is your malfunction, not mine. Dawkins, like many others who can make compelling arguments against the existence of your gods and "the gods" in general, is being honest in an admission that conclusive proof of non-existence for your gods and the gods of others doesn't exist.

I suspect that Richard Dawkins would object to your implication that he acknowledges your gods. To claim that Dawkins is on "your side" is both arrogant and self serving - qualities that seem to define creationist fundies. You could always invite Dawkins to provide his opinion as to what side he is on. It just seems fair to provide him an opportunity to express his views as opposed to you "speaking" on his behalf.

Let's suppose that Dawkins had an epiphany and tomorrow, chose to believe that David Koresh was god incarnate and had risen from the ashes. So what? Dawkins could hallelujah down the street and proclaim the second coming of Koresh and the emergence of Koresh'ianity. That would no more prove Koresh as a god than it would prove your currently configured gods.


Lastly, you're taking the same false liberties with your alleged Francis Krick comment as you did with your comment that Dawkins was on "your side".

I always find it remarkable how fundie creationists are so willing to lie and misrepresent in desperate attempts to force their beliefs on others.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No one can prove when and how the earth was created, Nor how old it is. The only scientific means of figuring it out would be PREDICTING its age by the earliest predictions of when something was. Example fossles and things of that nature. Science is all a bunch of theories and guesses. Hardly any of it is proven set in stone fact. So it leaves you to your beliefs of which you can not question anyones beliefs because even yours is questionable. Just know that people have the right to figure things out for their selves and what they feel and think is on them and not to be judged by others. Because no one here was alive back then and your theories are as good as anyone elses. Its all just a guess.

Sorry, but scientific theories aren't guesses. They're an explanation based on facts and experimentation. The age of the earth, for example, isn't a guess, but a calculation based on known half-lives of radioactive species. Theories are meant to be questioned. Saying we can't question yours is just anti-intellectual BS.

Assumptions are used in dating methods he was correct.

 

[Youwerecreated]

what the fuck!
When we treat of sexual selection we shall see that primeval man, or rather some early progenitor of man [WHICH ONE], 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 [NOT EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE], 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.

Language is one of those things that defies Darwinism. I have bolded the assumptive language above. Plenty of other species have had enough time to go from mating noises to audible words. Without language, well, you are just another monkey.

Nonsense. The above is another spectacular display of your ignorance regarding "Darwinism". Your revulsion for science and process of science causes you to employ the tactics of your fellow science loathing fundies at the ICR who similarly denigrate the work of Darwin. While you consistently seek to misrepresent the work of Darwin, I'll spell it out again so as to allow readers to understand your science loathing agenda: Darwin theory sought to explain the principles of natural selection, adaptation and fitness for survival.

Promoting blatant lies in furtherance of your religious agenda is a common tactic among Creationist fundies. Fortunately, your lies are typically exposed as such.

You are just plain wrong about creationist being science loathing.

 

[bobgnote]

Environmental Problems: A Creationist Perspective - Our Biblical Heritage

Introduction

Though man has always impacted the environment, sometimes detrimentally, it has only been relatively recently, with the coming of industrialization, that he has had the capacity to seriously damage the natural order and to do so on a global basis. These environmental concerns include problems of air, water and land quality which are vital. not only to continued industrialization and a high standard of living, but also to our health and general well-being. These issues have been greatly discussed in the various media over the past decade and are familiar to most Americans.

Yet with the rise of such problems has come a search for their causes. One cause which has been suggested is man's attitude to nature and the factors which shape this attitude.

In looking at Western countries, some researchers have concluded that many of the environmentally destructive attitudes have been shaped by man's religious beliefs which are essentially Biblical. They believe that the Judeo-Christian ethic implies that nature exists solely to serve man, to be dispensed with as he pleases; or that a dichotomy of man vs. nature is encouraged. In this part of the article. we will examine briefly some aspects of this charge and review some pertinent Scriptures to see if the Bible requires or encourages environmentally destructive attitudes.

-------------------

In the course of this article, the writer makes a case, for proper stewardship, according to passages, in the Bible.

Do any creationists see, how cars and chainsaws accelerated GHG concentrations?

Do creationists understand the greenhouse effect, whereby atmospheric molecules, of three atoms or more cause a blanketing, to trap infrared radiation, near the surface?

Do creationists understand, how more CO2 is outgassing, with CH4, from warming lands and waters, to tip global warming, to RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING?

Do creationists understand, how CLIMATE CHANGE is reflected, by more wildfires, droughts, desertification, floods, storms, oceanic acidification, anoxia, and sea level rise?

Do creationists do any better, than Republicans, at understanding this, or better, than Democrats, at giving a crap, how the extinction rate is 100x normal, and we will engage Mass Extinction Event 6?

Yeah, somebody needs to be nice to trees, even if somebody made up mass delusion media, about a fictitious "God," to get'r'done.

BTW, the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, according to a lot of scientific media.

Human civilization corresponds, to the Holocene warming period, which was supposed to end, any time now, but somebody got out the cars and factories and chainsaws, to send CO2 levels, way UP, to 400 ppm and climbing, when the usual Pleistocene-Holocene maximum is always 280 ppm.

Do creationists understand, how temperature is going to go UP, to keep up with CO2 and CH4, which is at levels, higher than either the PETM or P/T extinctions?

Does anyone think "God" will get it on, to intervene, against extinctions? You might want to check page 1, of the Qu'ran, to get some kind of suspicion, how "God" is some guy, who can do a butt-scope on you and play with your mind, like he made all of it.

 

[Hollie]

Language is one of those things that defies Darwinism. I have bolded the assumptive language above. Plenty of other species have had enough time to go from mating noises to audible words. Without language, well, you are just another monkey.

Nonsense. The above is another spectacular display of your ignorance regarding "Darwinism". Your revulsion for science and process of science causes you to employ the tactics of your fellow science loathing fundies at the ICR who similarly denigrate the work of Darwin. While you consistently seek to misrepresent the work of Darwin, I'll spell it out again so as to allow readers to understand your science loathing agenda: Darwin theory sought to explain the principles of natural selection, adaptation and fitness for survival.

Promoting blatant lies in furtherance of your religious agenda is a common tactic among Creationist fundies. Fortunately, your lies are typically exposed as such.

You are just plain wrong about creationist being science loathing.

Not at all. To purposely misrepresent, skew and falsifying the science that describes Darwin's methodology and to use such terms as "Darwinism", is to denigrate the biology, anthropology and physical sciences that confirm his theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?

There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s). Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?

I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?

How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.

DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.

I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.

Your assignment of god-like qualities to Dawkins is your malfunction, not mine. Dawkins, like many others who can make compelling arguments against the existence of your gods and "the gods" in general, is being honest in an admission that conclusive proof of non-existence for your gods and the gods of others doesn't exist.

I suspect that Richard Dawkins would object to your implication that he acknowledges your gods. To claim that Dawkins is on "your side" is both arrogant and self serving - qualities that seem to define creationist fundies. You could always invite Dawkins to provide his opinion as to what side he is on. It just seems fair to provide him an opportunity to express his views as opposed to you "speaking" on his behalf.

Let's suppose that Dawkins had an epiphany and tomorrow, chose to believe that David Koresh was god incarnate and had risen from the ashes. So what? Dawkins could hallelujah down the street and proclaim the second coming of Koresh and the emergence of Koresh'ianity. That would no more prove Koresh as a god than it would prove your currently configured gods.


Lastly, you're taking the same false liberties with your alleged Francis Krick comment as you did with your comment that Dawkins was on "your side".

I always find it remarkable how fundie creationists are so willing to lie and misrepresent in desperate attempts to force their beliefs on others.

Trust me Dawkins is not godlike. It was dawkins words not mine where he admits thAT Jesus once existed. It was dawkins words where he admits to evidence of design. It was Dawkins words where he admits the possibility of God. It was Dawkins who is no longer an atheist,he is now an agnostic. Why is that because he can't deny the fact of design in nature.

It's DR. Francis Crick and he most certainly made those comments even though he was an evolutionist.

My point is they know design when they see it ,and so do we. So we are only on the same side on that issue.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nonsense. The above is another spectacular display of your ignorance regarding "Darwinism". Your revulsion for science and process of science causes you to employ the tactics of your fellow science loathing fundies at the ICR who similarly denigrate the work of Darwin. While you consistently seek to misrepresent the work of Darwin, I'll spell it out again so as to allow readers to understand your science loathing agenda: Darwin theory sought to explain the principles of natural selection, adaptation and fitness for survival.

Promoting blatant lies in furtherance of your religious agenda is a common tactic among Creationist fundies. Fortunately, your lies are typically exposed as such.

You are just plain wrong about creationist being science loathing.

Not at all. To purposely misrepresent, skew and falsifying the science that describes Darwin's methodology and to use such terms as "Darwinism", is to denigrate the biology, anthropology and physical sciences that confirm his theory.

Do you want to see an evolutionist deliberately misquote a creationist and the evidence. This evolutionist makes bad arguments and he does not know his bible. The evolution that Christians accept is microevolution not macroevolution. He is disengenuious.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDTcv4zYKU&feature=plcp]The Genesis Debate - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?

There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s). Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?

I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?

How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.

DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.

I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.

Your assignment of god-like qualities to Dawkins is your malfunction, not mine. Dawkins, like many others who can make compelling arguments against the existence of your gods and "the gods" in general, is being honest in an admission that conclusive proof of non-existence for your gods and the gods of others doesn't exist.

I suspect that Richard Dawkins would object to your implication that he acknowledges your gods. To claim that Dawkins is on "your side" is both arrogant and self serving - qualities that seem to define creationist fundies. You could always invite Dawkins to provide his opinion as to what side he is on. It just seems fair to provide him an opportunity to express his views as opposed to you "speaking" on his behalf.

Let's suppose that Dawkins had an epiphany and tomorrow, chose to believe that David Koresh was god incarnate and had risen from the ashes. So what? Dawkins could hallelujah down the street and proclaim the second coming of Koresh and the emergence of Koresh'ianity. That would no more prove Koresh as a god than it would prove your currently configured gods.


Lastly, you're taking the same false liberties with your alleged Francis Krick comment as you did with your comment that Dawkins was on "your side".

I always find it remarkable how fundie creationists are so willing to lie and misrepresent in desperate attempts to force their beliefs on others.

In the debate I posted to you, this is the evidence he deliberately ignored and admitted ignorance on and even got sarcastic over.

Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds - Answers in Genesis

 

[Hollie]

You are just plain wrong about creationist being science loathing.

Not at all. To purposely misrepresent, skew and falsifying the science that describes Darwin's methodology and to use such terms as "Darwinism", is to denigrate the biology, anthropology and physical sciences that confirm his theory.

Do you want to see an evolutionist deliberately misquote a creationist and the evidence. This evolutionist makes bad arguments and he does not know his bible. The evolution that Christians accept is microevolution not macroevolution. He is disengenuious.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDTcv4zYKU&feature=plcp]The Genesis Debate - YouTube[/ame]

I wasn't aware that you were tasked with speaking on behalf of Christianity and what creationist Christians believe. Such a weighty burden you bear.

Whether an "evilutionist" is or is not fluent with bible verses is really unimportant to science, unless you're prepared to offer proof of the claims to supernaturalism within the bible.

So, present to us your claims of miracles and supernaturalism and we can present those for peer reviewed science.

 

[Hollie]

I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?

How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.

DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.

I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.

Your assignment of god-like qualities to Dawkins is your malfunction, not mine. Dawkins, like many others who can make compelling arguments against the existence of your gods and "the gods" in general, is being honest in an admission that conclusive proof of non-existence for your gods and the gods of others doesn't exist.

I suspect that Richard Dawkins would object to your implication that he acknowledges your gods. To claim that Dawkins is on "your side" is both arrogant and self serving - qualities that seem to define creationist fundies. You could always invite Dawkins to provide his opinion as to what side he is on. It just seems fair to provide him an opportunity to express his views as opposed to you "speaking" on his behalf.

Let's suppose that Dawkins had an epiphany and tomorrow, chose to believe that David Koresh was god incarnate and had risen from the ashes. So what? Dawkins could hallelujah down the street and proclaim the second coming of Koresh and the emergence of Koresh'ianity. That would no more prove Koresh as a god than it would prove your currently configured gods.


Lastly, you're taking the same false liberties with your alleged Francis Krick comment as you did with your comment that Dawkins was on "your side".

I always find it remarkable how fundie creationists are so willing to lie and misrepresent in desperate attempts to force their beliefs on others.

Trust me Dawkins is not godlike. It was dawkins words not mine where he admits thAT Jesus once existed. It was dawkins words where he admits to evidence of design. It was Dawkins words where he admits the possibility of God. It was Dawkins who is no longer an atheist,he is now an agnostic. Why is that because he can't deny the fact of design in nature.

It's DR. Francis Crick and he most certainly made those comments even though he was an evolutionist.

My point is they know design when they see it ,and so do we. So we are only on the same side on that issue.

There is no fact of supernatural design in nature. Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a single fact confirming supernatural design.

If you are reduced to lies as the means supportive of your claims, doesn't that suggest you are grasping at straws?

 

[konradv]

No one can prove when and how the earth was created, Nor how old it is. The only scientific means of figuring it out would be PREDICTING its age by the earliest predictions of when something was. Example fossles and things of that nature. Science is all a bunch of theories and guesses. Hardly any of it is proven set in stone fact. So it leaves you to your beliefs of which you can not question anyones beliefs because even yours is questionable. Just know that people have the right to figure things out for their selves and what they feel and think is on them and not to be judged by others. Because no one here was alive back then and your theories are as good as anyone elses. Its all just a guess.

Sorry, but scientific theories aren't guesses. They're an explanation based on facts and experimentation. The age of the earth, for example, isn't a guess, but a calculation based on known half-lives of radioactive species. Theories are meant to be questioned. Saying we can't question yours is just anti-intellectual BS.

Assumptions are used in dating methods he was correct.

Isotope half-lives are known quantities confirmed by experimentation, NOT assumptions.

 

[UltimateReality]

Language is one of those things that defies Darwinism. I have bolded the assumptive language above. Plenty of other species have had enough time to go from mating noises to audible words. Without language, well, you are just another monkey.

Nonsense. The above is another spectacular display of your ignorance regarding "Darwinism". Your revulsion for science and process of science causes you to employ the tactics of your fellow science loathing fundies at the ICR who similarly denigrate the work of Darwin. While you consistently seek to misrepresent the work of Darwin, I'll spell it out again so as to allow readers to understand your science loathing agenda: Darwin theory sought to explain the principles of natural selection, adaptation and fitness for survival.

Promoting blatant lies in furtherance of your religious agenda is a common tactic among Creationist fundies. Fortunately, your lies are typically exposed as such.

You are just plain wrong about creationist being science loathing.

I stopped responding to her repetitive programed posts last week.

 

[UltimateReality]

Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a single fact confirming supernatural design

What about the multi-verses?

 

[UltimateReality]

Sorry, but scientific theories aren't guesses. They're an explanation based on facts and experimentation. The age of the earth, for example, isn't a guess, but a calculation based on known half-lives of radioactive species. Theories are meant to be questioned. Saying we can't question yours is just anti-intellectual BS.

Assumptions are used in dating methods he was correct.

Isotope half-lives are known quantities confirmed by experimentation, NOT assumptions.

Wow, you really don't get this. They are confirmed by experimentation for the known ages of the items they were experimented on. Do you have any clue what 3.7 billion years looks like? Let's draw a timeline on the ground and assume human history is roughly 10,000 years. Let's let 10,000 years be represented by one foot. Now get in your car and drive 70 miles to the beginning of the earth. Are you telling me the things you observe in that one foot can be taken to be absolutely accurate for the whole 70 miles?? What if after a million years, something starts to change with regards to the half life of carbon. Experiements confirm a linear relationship for an extremely small part of the line we are looking at. Science as it relates to the distant past is a best guess based on what we can confirm in human history's "microscopic" time period when compared to the Huge time period that accounts for the history of the earth. But just for the record, I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe in the 3.7 billion year old earth.

But even more preposterous is you are telling me you believe things that no human has ever witnessed. I guess you have more faith than you think.

 

[konradv]

Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a single fact confirming supernatural design

What about the multi-verses?

I thought you quit responding last week!

 

[konradv]

Assumptions are used in dating methods he was correct.

Isotope half-lives are known quantities confirmed by experimentation, NOT assumptions.

Wow, you really don't get this. They are confirmed by experimentation for the known ages of the items they were experimented on. Do you have any clue what 3.7 billion years looks like? Let's draw a timeline on the ground and assume human history is roughly 10,000 years. Let's let 10,000 years be represented by one foot. Now get in your car and drive 70 miles to the beginning of the earth. Are you telling me the things you observe in that one foot can be taken to be absolutely accurate for the whole 70 miles?? What if after a million years, something starts to change with regards to the half life of carbon. Experiements confirm a linear relationship for an extremely small part of the line we are looking at. Science as it relates to the distant past is a best guess based on what we can confirm in human history's "microscopic" time period based on the history of the earth. But just for the record, I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe in the 3.7 billion year old earth.

But even more preposterous is you are telling me you believe things that no human has ever witnessed. I guess you have more faith than you think.

When you do good science one foot can represent 10,000 miles.

We have to assume the half-life doesn't change. It doesn't for shorter-lived species, why should we assume it does so for longer ones?

I believe in evolution because, if I didn't, I'd have to say God lies to us. How did the fossils get there? We have remarkable brains. I think God expects us to use them.

BTW, the earth is believed to be 4.5 billion years old, calling into even more doubt your knowledge of the subject.

 

[UltimateReality]

Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a single fact confirming supernatural design

What about the multi-verses?

I thought you quit responding last week!

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, ehh? I said I stopped responding to her repetitive, programmed posts, the ones where she keeps posting the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ...

 

[Hollie]

Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a single fact confirming supernatural design

What about the multi-verses?

It seems you're selective in your "stopped responding"... for convenience's sake.

What about the multi-verses? Poorly configured side-step.

Where are the facts confirming supernatural design?

 

[UltimateReality]

Isotope half-lives are known quantities confirmed by experimentation, NOT assumptions.

Wow, you really don't get this. They are confirmed by experimentation for the known ages of the items they were experimented on. Do you have any clue what 3.7 billion years looks like? Let's draw a timeline on the ground and assume human history is roughly 10,000 years. Let's let 10,000 years be represented by one foot. Now get in your car and drive 70 miles to the beginning of the earth. Are you telling me the things you observe in that one foot can be taken to be absolutely accurate for the whole 70 miles?? What if after a million years, something starts to change with regards to the half life of carbon. Experiements confirm a linear relationship for an extremely small part of the line we are looking at. Science as it relates to the distant past is a best guess based on what we can confirm in human history's "microscopic" time period based on the history of the earth. But just for the record, I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe in the 3.7 billion year old earth.

But even more preposterous is you are telling me you believe things that no human has ever witnessed. I guess you have more faith than you think.

When you do good science one foot can represent 10,000 miles.

We have to assume the half-life doesn't change. It doesn't for shorter-lived species, why should we assume it does so for longer ones?

I believe in evolution because, if I didn't, I'd have to say God lies to us. How did the fossils get there? We have remarkable brains. I think God expects us to use them.

BTW, the earth is believed to be 4.5 billion years old, calling into even more doubt your knowledge of the subject.

A simple mistake because the last time I did the math on the timeline I was doing it for age of the universe, which is BELIEVED to be 13.7 Billion years old. I merely carried the wrong number forward. So with the correct age of the earth, you would have to drive 85 miles!!! One foot out of 85 miles is what you are working with.

 

[UltimateReality]

Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a single fact confirming supernatural design

What about the multi-verses?

It seems you're selective in your "stopped responding"... for convenience's sake.

What about the multi-verses? Poorly configured side-step.

Where are the facts confirming supernatural design?

I stopped responding because you keep presenting the same arguments over and over when you have been shown to be 100% WRONG.. Just like the list of peer reviewed ID papers you keep ignoring.