Creationists

[Hollie]

Will you do the research and provide an answer to my two questions?

What two questions? Would you mind repeating them? I tried to search back but can't find them.

I don't ask these as some kind of trick. I really want to know if there is a consistent view on this from the TOE camp...

1. At what point in known organisms, cells and structures, does the theory of evolution propose to begin. How far back does evolution start to explain where we are now. Where does abiogenisis actually end and the TOE begin.

2. What does the common ancestor evolutionists continually refer to look like? Is it a hominid, or a single cell organism? Again, at what speciation level is common ancestry said to begin?

So just what does the TOE cover? Where does it begin?

Your questions at this point in the thread are not surprising. It's been obvious from an early point in the thread that your knowledge of evolutionary science was limited to what you have been indoctrinated with on creationist websites. Your knowledge is stunted and it is only you who can make a concerted effort to learn evolutionary fact from creationist falsehoods.

That's why it has been so exasperating trying to explain to you the science as you had never been exposed to, or never had the inclination to seek knowledge beyond religious perspectives.

Let's also be honest and acknowledge that your questions above are both disengenuous and... smarmy, being an appropriate term. Your need to sling into your goofy pattern of juvenile name-calling is lurking. It has an odor.

You can find the answers to the questions above. But you won't even look.

 

[UltimateReality]

What two questions? Would you mind repeating them? I tried to search back but can't find them.

I don't ask these as some kind of trick. I really want to know if there is a consistent view on this from the TOE camp...

1. At what point in known organisms, cells and structures, does the theory of evolution propose to begin. How far back does evolution start to explain where we are now. Where does abiogenisis actually end and the TOE begin.

2. What does the common ancestor evolutionists continually refer to look like? Is it a hominid, or a single cell organism? Again, at what speciation level is common ancestry said to begin?

So just what does the TOE cover? Where does it begin?

Your questions at this point in the thread are not surprising. It's been obvious from an early point in the thread that your knowledge of evolutionary science was limited to what you have been indoctrinated with on creationist websites. Your knowledge is stunted and it is only you who can make a concerted effort to learn evolutionary fact from creationist falsehoods.

That's why it has been so exasperating trying to explain to you the science as you had never been exposed to, or never had the inclination to seek knowledge beyond religious perspectives.

Let's also be honest and acknowledge that your questions above are both disengenuous and... smarmy, being an appropriate term. Your need to sling into your goofy pattern of juvenile name-calling is lurking. It has an odor.

You can find the answers to the questions above. But you won't even look.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Funny, you talk about my name calling. You really are totally oblivious to your own behavior deficiencies, aren't you?
Hollymen, wouldn't it have been easier just to answer the questions than to go on obsessing about me?

You don't really know the answer do you?

 

[Hollie]

I don't ask these as some kind of trick. I really want to know if there is a consistent view on this from the TOE camp...

1. At what point in known organisms, cells and structures, does the theory of evolution propose to begin. How far back does evolution start to explain where we are now. Where does abiogenisis actually end and the TOE begin.

2. What does the common ancestor evolutionists continually refer to look like? Is it a hominid, or a single cell organism? Again, at what speciation level is common ancestry said to begin?

So just what does the TOE cover? Where does it begin?

Your questions at this point in the thread are not surprising. It's been obvious from an early point in the thread that your knowledge of evolutionary science was limited to what you have been indoctrinated with on creationist websites. Your knowledge is stunted and it is only you who can make a concerted effort to learn evolutionary fact from creationist falsehoods.

That's why it has been so exasperating trying to explain to you the science as you had never been exposed to, or never had the inclination to seek knowledge beyond religious perspectives.

Let's also be honest and acknowledge that your questions above are both disengenuous and... smarmy, being an appropriate term. Your need to sling into your goofy pattern of juvenile name-calling is lurking. It has an odor.

You can find the answers to the questions above. But you won't even look.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Funny, you talk about my name calling. You really are totally oblivious to your own behavior deficiencies, aren't you?
Hollymen, wouldn't it have been easier just to answer the questions than to go on obsessing about me?

You don't really know the answer do you?

There are actually several possible explanations. Although, none of them are explored on creationist websites. That's the danger you run in to when you're completely dishonest and make no attempt to understand the issues except to insist on supernatural explanations which are not explanations at all.

Who is obsessing? You posed your silly questions to me. You can look two posts back if you've lost track of what you're posting.

It seems that your juvenile name-calling is the real obsession.

 

[UltimateReality]

Your questions at this point in the thread are not surprising. It's been obvious from an early point in the thread that your knowledge of evolutionary science was limited to what you have been indoctrinated with on creationist websites. Your knowledge is stunted and it is only you who can make a concerted effort to learn evolutionary fact from creationist falsehoods.

That's why it has been so exasperating trying to explain to you the science as you had never been exposed to, or never had the inclination to seek knowledge beyond religious perspectives.

Let's also be honest and acknowledge that your questions above are both disengenuous and... smarmy, being an appropriate term. Your need to sling into your goofy pattern of juvenile name-calling is lurking. It has an odor.

You can find the answers to the questions above. But you won't even look.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Funny, you talk about my name calling. You really are totally oblivious to your own behavior deficiencies, aren't you?
Hollymen, wouldn't it have been easier just to answer the questions than to go on obsessing about me?

You don't really know the answer do you?

There are actually several possible explanations. Although, none of them are explored on creationist websites. That's the danger you run in to when you're completely dishonest and make no attempt to understand the issues except to insist on supernatural explanations which are not explanations at all.

Who is obsessing? You posed your silly questions to me. You can look two posts back if you've lost track of what you're posting.

It seems that your juvenile name-calling is the real obsession.

You try to act like I could find the answer to my two questions but you haven't tried, and you really don't know do you? The rest of your posts are useless camo verbiage for your lack of knowledge on the subject.

In fact, you pretty much haven't added anything to the discussion other than going on about ICR endlessly.

 

[Hollie]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Funny, you talk about my name calling. You really are totally oblivious to your own behavior deficiencies, aren't you?
Hollymen, wouldn't it have been easier just to answer the questions than to go on obsessing about me?

You don't really know the answer do you?

There are actually several possible explanations. Although, none of them are explored on creationist websites. That's the danger you run in to when you're completely dishonest and make no attempt to understand the issues except to insist on supernatural explanations which are not explanations at all.

Who is obsessing? You posed your silly questions to me. You can look two posts back if you've lost track of what you're posting.

It seems that your juvenile name-calling is the real obsession.

You try to act like I could find the answer to my two questions but you haven't tried, and you really don't know do you? The rest of your posts are useless camo verbiage for your lack of knowledge on the subject.

In fact, you pretty much haven't added anything to the discussion other than going on about ICR endlessly.

Acually, so mch of your posting is cut and paste from creationist websites followed by mindless name-calling, I can't recall a single, rational point you have added to this thread.

"Going on about the ICR" is a function of your claims being nothing more than the nonsense they offer.

 

[UltimateReality]

There are actually several possible explanations. Although, none of them are explored on creationist websites. That's the danger you run in to when you're completely dishonest and make no attempt to understand the issues except to insist on supernatural explanations which are not explanations at all.

Who is obsessing? You posed your silly questions to me. You can look two posts back if you've lost track of what you're posting.

It seems that your juvenile name-calling is the real obsession.

You try to act like I could find the answer to my two questions but you haven't tried, and you really don't know do you? The rest of your posts are useless camo verbiage for your lack of knowledge on the subject.

In fact, you pretty much haven't added anything to the discussion other than going on about ICR endlessly.

Acually, so mch of your posting is cut and paste from creationist websites followed by mindless name-calling, I can't recall a single, rational point you have added to this thread.

"Going on about the ICR" is a function of your claims being nothing more than the nonsense they offer.

And still no real answer from. Just camouflage verbiage.

 

[UltimateReality]

I will give you a real answer to my common ancestry question. Your Darwinist camp goes around talking about him/her/it all the time, but (just like evolution is a myth) the common ancestor is a mythical creature, with only unproven and untested speculation existing on the subject except for genetic studies that proved to any sane scientist, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Funny that people make fun of Christians for talking about God when they believe he doesn't exist, yet the god of evolution, the common ancestor, is talked about all the time like it is really real. Doh!!! There goes Darwin's tree of life!!! Wonder why it is still in textbooks and we are still talking about.

"In 1998, Carl Woese proposed (1) that no individual organism can be considered a LUA, and (2) that the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[13] In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life",[14] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[15] The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses which included horizontal gene transfer. However, the formal test was ambiguous with respect to the community of organisms hypothesis, since it did not require that the last universal common ancestor be a single organism, but allowed it to be a population of organisms with different genotypes that lived in different places and times.[UR:Gag!!! so what does this prove-nothing] The formal test was also consistent with multiple populations with independent origins gaining the ability to exchange essential genetic material effectively to become one species.[15]"

Here Hollymen, read this and report back to me with your thoughts on this. See if you can actually do it without mentioning a Creationist website, but actually have a logical discussion about a REAL topic instead of repeating the same vitriol over and over.

Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hollie]

You try to act like I could find the answer to my two questions but you haven't tried, and you really don't know do you? The rest of your posts are useless camo verbiage for your lack of knowledge on the subject.

In fact, you pretty much haven't added anything to the discussion other than going on about ICR endlessly.

Acually, so mch of your posting is cut and paste from creationist websites followed by mindless name-calling, I can't recall a single, rational point you have added to this thread.

"Going on about the ICR" is a function of your claims being nothing more than the nonsense they offer.

And still no real answer from. Just camouflage verbiage.

You've been given the answer. You just continue to insist that there are gods who are responsible for all creation and your every breath is consumed with vilifying science in the failed hope that will somehow support your gods. It's a ridiculous worldview but one that is common to the science loathing, ICR worshiping types.

 

[Hollie]

I will give you a real answer to my common ancestry question. Your Darwinist camp goes around talking about him/her/it all the time, but (just like evolution is a myth) the common ancestor is a mythical creature, with only unproven and untested speculation existing on the subject except for genetic studies that proved to any sane scientist, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Funny that people make fun of Christians for talking about God when they believe he doesn't exist, yet the god of evolution, the common ancestor, is talked about all the time like it is really real. Doh!!! There goes Darwin's tree of life!!! Wonder why it is still in textbooks and we are still talking about.

"In 1998, Carl Woese proposed (1) that no individual organism can be considered a LUA, and (2) that the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[13] In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life",[14] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[15] The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses which included horizontal gene transfer. However, the formal test was ambiguous with respect to the community of organisms hypothesis, since it did not require that the last universal common ancestor be a single organism, but allowed it to be a population of organisms with different genotypes that lived in different places and times.[UR:Gag!!! so what does this prove-nothing] The formal test was also consistent with multiple populations with independent origins gaining the ability to exchange essential genetic material effectively to become one species.[15]"

Here Hollymen, read this and report back to me with your thoughts on this. See if you can actually do it without mentioning a Creationist website, but actually have a logical discussion about a REAL topic instead of repeating the same vitriol over and over.

Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your revulsion for the science of evolution (and all science), will not make that science go away.

And as usual, your copying and pasting from fundie religious sites is appended with your usual juvenile name-calling. If you cannot separate the rational world from your supernatural nonsense presented by the charlatans at fundies religious sites, you will forever be subject to ridicule.

Here's some enlightenment for you: the earth is much more than 6,000 years old and science is the mechanism for exploring that world. Religion is not science. You are unable to make that distinction and that is why your claims are so silly.

 

[bobgnote]

When designs are intelligent, creationists and ID freaks will be evolved out, of all media.

When some intelligent designer gets effectual, existing religions will be obsolete, instantly.

 

[Hollie]

I will give you a real answer to my common ancestry question. Your Darwinist camp goes around talking about him/her/it all the time, but (just like evolution is a myth) the common ancestor is a mythical creature, with only unproven and untested speculation existing on the subject except for genetic studies that proved to any sane scientist, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Funny that people make fun of Christians for talking about God when they believe he doesn't exist, yet the god of evolution, the common ancestor, is talked about all the time like it is really real. Doh!!! There goes Darwin's tree of life!!! Wonder why it is still in textbooks and we are still talking about.

"In 1998, Carl Woese proposed (1) that no individual organism can be considered a LUA, and (2) that the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[13] In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life",[14] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[15] The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses which included horizontal gene transfer. However, the formal test was ambiguous with respect to the community of organisms hypothesis, since it did not require that the last universal common ancestor be a single organism, but allowed it to be a population of organisms with different genotypes that lived in different places and times.[UR:Gag!!! so what does this prove-nothing] The formal test was also consistent with multiple populations with independent origins gaining the ability to exchange essential genetic material effectively to become one species.[15]"

Here Hollymen, read this and report back to me with your thoughts on this. See if you can actually do it without mentioning a Creationist website, but actually have a logical discussion about a REAL topic instead of repeating the same vitriol over and over.

Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So... I'm waiting for the cut and paste warrior to explain in his own words what the above means. What are the implications?

 

[Hollie]

I will give you a real answer to my common ancestry question. Your Darwinist camp goes around talking about him/her/it all the time, but (just like evolution is a myth) the common ancestor is a mythical creature, with only unproven and untested speculation existing on the subject except for genetic studies that proved to any sane scientist, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Funny that people make fun of Christians for talking about God when they believe he doesn't exist, yet the god of evolution, the common ancestor, is talked about all the time like it is really real. Doh!!! There goes Darwin's tree of life!!! Wonder why it is still in textbooks and we are still talking about.

"In 1998, Carl Woese proposed (1) that no individual organism can be considered a LUA, and (2) that the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[13] In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life",[14] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[15] The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses which included horizontal gene transfer. However, the formal test was ambiguous with respect to the community of organisms hypothesis, since it did not require that the last universal common ancestor be a single organism, but allowed it to be a population of organisms with different genotypes that lived in different places and times.[UR:Gag!!! so what does this prove-nothing] The formal test was also consistent with multiple populations with independent origins gaining the ability to exchange essential genetic material effectively to become one species.[15]"

Here Hollymen, read this and report back to me with your thoughts on this. See if you can actually do it without mentioning a Creationist website, but actually have a logical discussion about a REAL topic instead of repeating the same vitriol over and over.

Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So... I'm waiting for the cut and paste warrior to explain in his own words what the above means. What are the implications?

Is there a reason why the cut and paste wannabe cuts and pastes from Wiki as opposed to reputable science journals?

Yes, of course there is. Reputable science would contradict Wiki.

 

[Hollie]

Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."

Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.



Francis Crick on Origin of Life


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

- Francis Crick



Today, Miller’s experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled “Life’s Crucible”:

Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller’s atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. “It’s a problem,” he sighs with exasperation. “How do you make polymers? That’s not so easy.”223

As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled “The Emergence of Life on Earth,” the following comments appear:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
That’s bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules – the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224

In brief, neither Miller’s experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.225

References:

218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.

219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.

220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, “Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth,” Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.

221 “New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.

222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.

223 “Life’s Crucible,” Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)

224 “The Rise of Life on Earth,” National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)

225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added

Miller’s Experiment « Mazin’s Blog

I couldn't help but notice that the long quote appears prominately in all the expected Christian creationist websites and even Harun Yahya's site.

I had almost forgotten about the deceitful and falsified claim above that creationists so frequently use in their attempts to prove their gods. From the "Quote Mine" project at Talkorigins.org,

Quote #74

Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":


" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret


The above so often typifies the lies and falsehoods used by the creationist cabal. Their hopes to vilify science causes them to become pathological liars, doing anything required to promote their gods.

 

[UltimateReality]

Acually, so mch of your posting is cut and paste from creationist websites followed by mindless name-calling, I can't recall a single, rational point you have added to this thread.

"Going on about the ICR" is a function of your claims being nothing more than the nonsense they offer.

And still no real answer from. Just camouflage verbiage.

You've been given the answer. You just continue to insist that there are gods who are responsible for all creation and your every breath is consumed with vilifying science in the failed hope that will somehow support your gods. It's a ridiculous worldview but one that is common to the science loathing, ICR worshiping types.

ICR, blah, blah, blah, blah, gods, blah, blah, blah, science loathing, blah, blah, blah. GEEZ, Ad Hollymen, get some new material for goodness sakes!!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

I will give you a real answer to my common ancestry question. Your Darwinist camp goes around talking about him/her/it all the time, but (just like evolution is a myth) the common ancestor is a mythical creature, with only unproven and untested speculation existing on the subject except for genetic studies that proved to any sane scientist, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Funny that people make fun of Christians for talking about God when they believe he doesn't exist, yet the god of evolution, the common ancestor, is talked about all the time like it is really real. Doh!!! There goes Darwin's tree of life!!! Wonder why it is still in textbooks and we are still talking about.

"In 1998, Carl Woese proposed (1) that no individual organism can be considered a LUA, and (2) that the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[13] In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life",[14] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[15] The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses which included horizontal gene transfer. However, the formal test was ambiguous with respect to the community of organisms hypothesis, since it did not require that the last universal common ancestor be a single organism, but allowed it to be a population of organisms with different genotypes that lived in different places and times.[UR:Gag!!! so what does this prove-nothing] The formal test was also consistent with multiple populations with independent origins gaining the ability to exchange essential genetic material effectively to become one species.[15]"

Here Hollymen, read this and report back to me with your thoughts on this. See if you can actually do it without mentioning a Creationist website, but actually have a logical discussion about a REAL topic instead of repeating the same vitriol over and over.

Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So... I'm waiting for the cut and paste warrior to explain in his own words what the above means. What are the implications?

Is there a reason why the cut and paste wannabe cuts and pastes from Wiki as opposed to reputable science journals?

Oh I see, you mean like all the posts from science journals you posted up?? Blah, blah, blah, ICR, blah, ICR. You sound like a broken record, er, Compact Disc, er, MP3.

 

[Hollie]

And still no real answer from. Just camouflage verbiage.

You've been given the answer. You just continue to insist that there are gods who are responsible for all creation and your every breath is consumed with vilifying science in the failed hope that will somehow support your gods. It's a ridiculous worldview but one that is common to the science loathing, ICR worshiping types.

ICR, blah, blah, blah, blah, gods, blah, blah, blah, science loathing, blah, blah, blah. GEEZ, Ad Hollymen, get some new material for goodness sakes!!!!

Against "ICR, blah, blah, blah, blah, gods, blah, blah, blah, science loathing, blah, blah, blah" and your juvenile name-calling, I have only to sit back and watch you make a fool of yourself.

What did you think of the tactics used your alternate identity with the parsing of material to falsely represent the work of Crick?

Pretty sleazy, no?

 

[UltimateReality]

I will give you a real answer to my common ancestry question. Your Darwinist camp goes around talking about him/her/it all the time, but (just like evolution is a myth) the common ancestor is a mythical creature, with only unproven and untested speculation existing on the subject except for genetic studies that proved to any sane scientist, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Funny that people make fun of Christians for talking about God when they believe he doesn't exist, yet the god of evolution, the common ancestor, is talked about all the time like it is really real. Doh!!! There goes Darwin's tree of life!!! Wonder why it is still in textbooks and we are still talking about.

"In 1998, Carl Woese proposed (1) that no individual organism can be considered a LUA, and (2) that the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[13] In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life",[14] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[15] The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses which included horizontal gene transfer. However, the formal test was ambiguous with respect to the community of organisms hypothesis, since it did not require that the last universal common ancestor be a single organism, but allowed it to be a population of organisms with different genotypes that lived in different places and times.[UR:Gag!!! so what does this prove-nothing] The formal test was also consistent with multiple populations with independent origins gaining the ability to exchange essential genetic material effectively to become one species.[15]"

Here Hollymen, read this and report back to me with your thoughts on this. See if you can actually do it without mentioning a Creationist website, but actually have a logical discussion about a REAL topic instead of repeating the same vitriol over and over.

Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your revulsion for the science of evolution (and all science), will not make that science go away.

And as usual, your copying and pasting from fundie religious sites is appended with your usual juvenile name-calling. If you cannot separate the rational world from your supernatural nonsense presented by the charlatans at fundies religious sites, you will forever be subject to ridicule.

Here's some enlightenment for you: the earth is much more than 6,000 years old and science is the mechanism for exploring that world. Religion is not science. You are unable to make that distinction and that is why your claims are so silly.

No real response. Just another bone headed stab at me about a 6,000 year old earth when I have repeated numberous times I am NOT a young earth creationist. I just have one more question for you before I put you on ignore... ARE YOU STUPID?

 

[Hollie]

I will give you a real answer to my common ancestry question. Your Darwinist camp goes around talking about him/her/it all the time, but (just like evolution is a myth) the common ancestor is a mythical creature, with only unproven and untested speculation existing on the subject except for genetic studies that proved to any sane scientist, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Funny that people make fun of Christians for talking about God when they believe he doesn't exist, yet the god of evolution, the common ancestor, is talked about all the time like it is really real. Doh!!! There goes Darwin's tree of life!!! Wonder why it is still in textbooks and we are still talking about.

"In 1998, Carl Woese proposed (1) that no individual organism can be considered a LUA, and (2) that the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[13] In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life",[14] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[15] The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses which included horizontal gene transfer. However, the formal test was ambiguous with respect to the community of organisms hypothesis, since it did not require that the last universal common ancestor be a single organism, but allowed it to be a population of organisms with different genotypes that lived in different places and times.[UR:Gag!!! so what does this prove-nothing] The formal test was also consistent with multiple populations with independent origins gaining the ability to exchange essential genetic material effectively to become one species.[15]"

Here Hollymen, read this and report back to me with your thoughts on this. See if you can actually do it without mentioning a Creationist website, but actually have a logical discussion about a REAL topic instead of repeating the same vitriol over and over.

Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your revulsion for the science of evolution (and all science), will not make that science go away.

And as usual, your copying and pasting from fundie religious sites is appended with your usual juvenile name-calling. If you cannot separate the rational world from your supernatural nonsense presented by the charlatans at fundies religious sites, you will forever be subject to ridicule.

Here's some enlightenment for you: the earth is much more than 6,000 years old and science is the mechanism for exploring that world. Religion is not science. You are unable to make that distinction and that is why your claims are so silly.

No real response. Just another bone headed stab at me about a 6,000 year old earth when I have repeated numberous times I am NOT a young earth creationist. I just have one more question for you before I put you on ignore... ARE YOU STUPID?

Please put me on ignore. It's evident by your behavior that the YEC crowd you endorse are simply dishonest and can only resort to forged quotes to represent their bankrupt claims.


I will, however, expose your lies, falsehoods and selective cutting and pasting when you falsify data like your alternate log in did here.


I had almost forgotten about the deceitful and falsified claim above that creationists so frequently use in their attempts to prove their gods. From the "Quote Mine" project at Talkorigins.org,

Quote #74

Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":


" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret


The above so often typifies the lies and falsehoods used by the creationist cabal. Their hopes to vilify science causes them to become pathological liars, doing anything required to promote their gods.

 

[The Irish Ram]

God created the earth billions of years ago. It has gone through many alterations since. Look at the first two sentences in the Bible.
In the 1st. sentence, God created Earth. < which has mass. (Mass and void are not the same.)
We are not told the amount of time that passed between the creation of the earth, and the voiding of it in the 2nd. sentence. 14 billion years is our best guess so far.......
BUT:
We ARE privy to earth becoming habitable for children starting with the 3rd. sentence in Genesis.
In the third sentence He restored the heavens and the earth, this time, to include a new addition, Adam. That took place 6,000 years ago.
The mistake scientists make is believing that when God said let there be light in Genesis 1:3, that it was the FIRST time he said it. It was not, nor will it be the last. He "restructured" earth with water to purge all bloodlines save one, because all but 1 human bloodline had been corrupted by fallen angels, creating nasty, nasty animal and human hybrids. It grieved God so much to do so he waited until their was only one pure human bloodline left before he acted.
He will remodel Earth again, after the final battle with Satan. And he will provide us with a completely different light source, The Lord. And peace shall rule the planet.

 

[bobgnote]

There is somebody who plays, with your head.

Your head offers a clue, how the planet Earth is spherical.

Dogma is not perfect, but it used to help, to suggest facts, to those demented, by folk tales.

Dogma has no practical use, today, other than to show how assholes and retards cross-bred, while carrying a cross.

When religionists all notice how the Pope blames atheism, for failure to understand global warming, and they all notice how the planet is heating up, even during a mild solar cycle, I will consider subscribing, to ID.