Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

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?

Hollie I took a timeout over this crud you spew. You keep speaking of science but never using science as the basis of your argument.

Micro adaptations.

Produce the same kind of plant or animal,why is that ? The DNA code barrier. Never will a cow produce a non cow. Cow's only have genetic information to produce cow's.

Micro adaptations result from the sorting or the loss of genetic information. Micro adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools through gene depletion that is what happens when genetic information is sorted or lost.

If you breed two purebred boxers ,all you will get are boxers. The reason is when you breed,you breed genetic information out,you don't add genetic information.

The DNA code barrier will only allow a group of organisms to produce what the organism is. Then you have micro adaptations being caused by the loss or sorting of the genetic information,the gene pool gets weaker and weaker until they are removed from by natural selection.

Darwinism teaches things are getting better and better because of adding new and beneficial genetic information. Scientists know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to a gene pool. But if you were to compare mutations that cause change at all most of the time it is harmful not beneficial to the family. You can just compare the numbers , they don't lie.

Darwinists focus the discussion on micro adaptations because there is no viable evidence of Darwinian Macro Evolution.

Darwin when he went to the Galapagos Islands he counted 13 varieties of finches but there was 14. Is finches producing finches macro evolution or micro? He observed micro adaptations from the loss of genetic information. Those micro adaptations produced 14 varieties of finches.

Schools don't even teach Darwinism anymore. THey teach Neo Darwinism based on three false assumptions.

1. Mutations create new and beneficial genetic information.
2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population. I have to say this is a very foolish assumption with over 5,000 genetic disorders and they keep growing in number. If this assumption was true we all would be suffering from genetic disorders.
3. The magical ingredient is millions of years.

Mutations are also caused by the sorting or loss of the original genetic information. Once again, gene depletion. If we didn't have natural selection everyting would go extinct. Thank God for natural selection to keep the mutations from spreading through the whole gene pool.

Evolutionists will tell you that natural selection causes macro evolution. That's not true. Natural selection prevents it.

What is really observed is the DNA Code Barier + gene depletion + natural selection = zero macro evolution.

 

[Montrovant]

Ah, YWC, why do you things like this? Things keep getting better and better.....first, better is entirely subjective. Second, evolution is not about improvement so much as change. An organism might have a feature which makes it better suited to survive and reproduce in it's current environment, but that same creature might not be as well suited if the environment changes. You make it sound as though everything is supposed to be better than everything which came before, all on some sort of path to perfection. That's not the idea at all.

Also, you incorrectly state that natural selection should spread genetic disorders. This indicates a complete lack of understanding of the concept. Natural selection is about which creatures are more fit (yes, I used that specifically to poke at you, UltimateReality ). Genetic disorders are unlikely to do so, or they probably wouldn't be considered a disorder.

Speaking of magic, how about your supposed DNA code barrier? DNA can change.....up to this point! After that, no change! No particular reason, it just can't!

If you want to argue against evolutionary theory, at least try not to misrepresent it so much. It's as bad as UR being called a young-earth creationist.

 

[Hollie]

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?

Hollie I took a timeout over this crud you spew. You keep speaking of science but never using science as the basis of your argument.

What a strange comment that I never [use] science as the basis of your argument.

I do so all the time but only with those with enough personal integrity to exclude lies and falsehoods in the promotion of their arguments.

As we have with your endless cutting and pasting, you simply quote-mine material from creationist websites without a clue as to what the material is about. You become an accomplice to the tactics of lies and cheating used by the fundies to manufacture, faslsify and invent the nonsense they post in futile attempts to promote a religious faith.

It truly is a shame that absent any realistic expectation of furthering your religion to supplant science, you're reduced to lying as a last desperate exercise.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ah, YWC, why do you things like this? Things keep getting better and better.....first, better is entirely subjective. Second, evolution is not about improvement so much as change. An organism might have a feature which makes it better suited to survive and reproduce in it's current environment, but that same creature might not be as well suited if the environment changes. You make it sound as though everything is supposed to be better than everything which came before, all on some sort of path to perfection. That's not the idea at all.

Also, you incorrectly state that natural selection should spread genetic disorders. This indicates a complete lack of understanding of the concept. Natural selection is about which creatures are more fit (yes, I used that specifically to poke at you, UltimateReality ). Genetic disorders are unlikely to do so, or they probably wouldn't be considered a disorder.

Speaking of magic, how about your supposed DNA code barrier? DNA can change.....up to this point! After that, no change! No particular reason, it just can't!

If you want to argue against evolutionary theory, at least try not to misrepresent it so much. It's as bad as UR being called a young-earth creationist.

According to your theory life went from one single celled organism to complex organisms, the rest of what we see on this planet. Have humans always existed ? humans are the most advanced organism through your theory things do improve over time.How can you deny what I said ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

Hollie I took a timeout over this crud you spew. You keep speaking of science but never using science as the basis of your argument.

What a strange comment that I never [use] science as the basis of your argument.

I do so all the time but only with those with enough personal integrity to exclude lies and falsehoods in the promotion of their arguments.

As we have with your endless cutting and pasting, you simply quote-mine material from creationist websites without a clue as to what the material is about. You become an accomplice to the tactics of lies and cheating used by the fundies to manufacture, faslsify and invent the nonsense they post in futile attempts to promote a religious faith.

It truly is a shame that absent any realistic expectation of furthering your religion to supplant science, you're reduced to lying as a last desperate exercise.

No hollie, I don't see scientific explanations from you,just rhetoric. Show me what I said to be factually wrong.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie I took a timeout over this crud you spew. You keep speaking of science but never using science as the basis of your argument.

What a strange comment that I never [use] science as the basis of your argument.

I do so all the time but only with those with enough personal integrity to exclude lies and falsehoods in the promotion of their arguments.

As we have with your endless cutting and pasting, you simply quote-mine material from creationist websites without a clue as to what the material is about. You become an accomplice to the tactics of lies and cheating used by the fundies to manufacture, faslsify and invent the nonsense they post in futile attempts to promote a religious faith.

It truly is a shame that absent any realistic expectation of furthering your religion to supplant science, you're reduced to lying as a last desperate exercise.

No hollie, I don't see scientific explanations from you,just rhetoric. Show me what I said to be factually wrong.

Do we start with the dishonest and sleazy selective alteration of the writings by Crick?

 

[Youwerecreated]

What a strange comment that I never [use] science as the basis of your argument.

I do so all the time but only with those with enough personal integrity to exclude lies and falsehoods in the promotion of their arguments.

As we have with your endless cutting and pasting, you simply quote-mine material from creationist websites without a clue as to what the material is about. You become an accomplice to the tactics of lies and cheating used by the fundies to manufacture, faslsify and invent the nonsense they post in futile attempts to promote a religious faith.

It truly is a shame that absent any realistic expectation of furthering your religion to supplant science, you're reduced to lying as a last desperate exercise.

No hollie, I don't see scientific explanations from you,just rhetoric. Show me what I said to be factually wrong.

Do we start with the dishonest and sleazy selective alteration of the writings by Crick?

How bout what i last posted to you. Crick saying it's like a miracle, that tells me he has no explanation how it could of happened anyother way. Miracles would be from the designer not from naturalism.

 

[Hollie]

No hollie, I don't see scientific explanations from you,just rhetoric. Show me what I said to be factually wrong.

Do we start with the dishonest and sleazy selective alteration of the writings by Crick?

How bout what i last posted to you. Crick saying it's like a miracle, that tells me he has no explanation how it could of happened anyother way. Miracles would be from the designer not from naturalism.

You are still falsely and dishonesty using selective portions of what Crick had written.

It's just more of the dishonest tactics some fundie religious zealots use to parse and / edit comments of others in failed attempts to bolster their religious beliefs.

It's a shame you don't understand that lying to promote your religious beliefs has become a pathology.

 

[UltimateReality]

Ah, YWC, why do you things like this? Things keep getting better and better.....first, better is entirely subjective. Second, evolution is not about improvement so much as change. An organism might have a feature which makes it better suited to survive and reproduce in it's current environment, but that same creature might not be as well suited if the environment changes. You make it sound as though everything is supposed to be better than everything which came before, all on some sort of path to perfection. That's not the idea at all.

I have heard different spins on this many times. I've even been accused of building a strawman by Loki when I made the claim evolutionists believe we came from a single cell organism. I've done some internet reading on common descent and it seems the overwhelming consensus among evolutionists is that we came from a bacteria. I posted a few Wiki links (gag ) a few back that talk about common ancestry. Would you not agree we Homo Sapiens are "better" than an E coli? What am I missing in what the common belief among evolutionary "scientist" regarding this topic?

 

[UltimateReality]

Do we start with the dishonest and sleazy selective alteration of the writings by Crick?

How bout what i last posted to you. Crick saying it's like a miracle, that tells me he has no explanation how it could of happened anyother way. Miracles would be from the designer not from naturalism.

You are still falsely and dishonesty using selective portions of what Crick had written.

It's just more of the dishonest tactics some fundie religious zealots use to parse and / edit comments of others in failed attempts to bolster their religious beliefs.

It's a shame you don't understand that lying to promote your religious beliefs has become a pathology.

Hollymen, I swear I'll start ignoring you but you are the queen of quoting the Bible out of context, lying, and cut and pasting others comments, passing them off as your own. I don't think you are in a position to be calling others out for the exact behavior you engage in. It's sad you are such a slave to the religious teachings of Dawkins. Back on ignore.

 

[newpolitics]

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?

.

1. TOE is After abiogensis: after the creation of self-replicating organic matter, or the formation of the first primitive cells containing RNA that could replicate themselves. Once reproduction occurs and is self-acting, then you can have evolution, I would think (I'm no expert). I don't actually know, but this is my intuition, evolution is merely change in allele frequencies.


2. Common ancestry can go back as far back as you like. If You are talking about the common ancestry for all living things, then it would likely be a proto-cell as described above, but I don't know, and neither does anyone else. We'd hope to find evidence, but it is unlikely we ever will, in my opnion. If you are talking about common ancestry for all mammals, then you don't go back as far. It depends on who's common ancestor you are talking about.

 

[UltimateReality]

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?

.

1. TOE is After abiogensis: after the creation of self-replicating organic matter, or the formation of the first primitive cells containing RNA that could replicate themselves. Once reproduction occurs and is self-acting, then you can have evolution, I would think (I'm no expert). I don't actually know, but this is my intuition, evolution is merely change in allele frequencies.


2. Common ancestry can go back as far back as you like. If You are talking about the common ancestry for all living things, then it would likely be a proto-cell as described above, but I don't know, and neither does anyone else. We'd hope to find evidence, but it is unlikely we ever will, in my opnion. If you are talking about common ancestry for all mammals, then you don't go back as far. It depends on who's common ancestor you are talking about.

Regarding the common ancestor, I guess I was really looking for the mythical creature the evolutionists always refer to in their arguments. There is info on the web like the wiki links I posted, but I was just wondering if there is really a consensus. And if there isn't, why would anyone refer to the "common ancestor" in an argument (Holly)?

 

[Hollie]

How bout what i last posted to you. Crick saying it's like a miracle, that tells me he has no explanation how it could of happened anyother way. Miracles would be from the designer not from naturalism.

You are still falsely and dishonesty using selective portions of what Crick had written.

It's just more of the dishonest tactics some fundie religious zealots use to parse and / edit comments of others in failed attempts to bolster their religious beliefs.

It's a shame you don't understand that lying to promote your religious beliefs has become a pathology.

Hollymen, I swear I'll start ignoring you but you are the queen of quoting the Bible out of context, lying, and cut and pasting others comments, passing them off as your own. I don't think you are in a position to be calling others out for the exact behavior you engage in. It's sad you are such a slave to the religious teachings of Dawkins. Back on ignore.

Aside from your usual name-calling, your post was predictable in that it made no sense. I haven't quoted the bible and the rest of your claims are meaningless drivel. You're getting quite desperate.

Your failed arguments are not going to be revived by juvenile personal attacks.

 

[Hollie]

.

1. TOE is After abiogensis: after the creation of self-replicating organic matter, or the formation of the first primitive cells containing RNA that could replicate themselves. Once reproduction occurs and is self-acting, then you can have evolution, I would think (I'm no expert). I don't actually know, but this is my intuition, evolution is merely change in allele frequencies.


2. Common ancestry can go back as far back as you like. If You are talking about the common ancestry for all living things, then it would likely be a proto-cell as described above, but I don't know, and neither does anyone else. We'd hope to find evidence, but it is unlikely we ever will, in my opnion. If you are talking about common ancestry for all mammals, then you don't go back as far. It depends on who's common ancestor you are talking about.

Regarding the common ancestor, I guess I was really looking for the mythical creature the evolutionists always refer to in their arguments. There is info on the web like the wiki links I posted, but I was just wondering if there is really a consensus. And if there isn't, why would anyone refer to the "common ancestor" in an argument (Holly)?

Evilutionists are not looking for a mythical creature.

You're simply clueless.

 

[daws101]

oh and daws the evidence for god the creator is design, which many on your side admit to.

wrong! The appearance of design is not evidence for design or god being the designer.
Who the fuck is our side
and who admits to what?

 

[daws101]

how about multiple eyewitness accounts?

nope. Eyewitness accounts are only viable when they match physical evidence.
Also since the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be interviewed or reexamined (since they've been dead for around a thousand years) their testimony cannot be verified.
(thanks for playing)

this is historical revisionism at its very core. If we apply that logic to any history, we should pitch all the history books. Hitler really didn't give the orders that resulting in millions of jews dying. Abraham lincoln wasn't shot by john wilkes booth. Etc. Etc. A large part of history is based on eye witness accounts that were documented at the time and lack total modern evidence of any kind.

is just me or are you really that stupid.
In your hysterically stupid examples you use two of the most documented, photographed physical evidence packed cases. Proving my point for me!

 

[daws101]

Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?

Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.

I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.

Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.

Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god

Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists

Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.

Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.

HEY ASSHAT (YWC) EVER READ YOUR OWN SHIT, BESIDES SPELLING IT WRONG ( In layperson's terms, two events are 'mutually exclusive' if they cannot occur at the same time. An example is tossing a coin once, which can result in either heads or tails, but not both.

In the coin-tossing example, both outcomes are collectively exhaustive, which means that at least one of the outcomes must happen, so these two possibilities together exhaust all the possibilities. However, not all mutually exclusive events are collectively exhaustive. For example, the outcomes 1 and 4 of a single roll of a six-sided die are mutually exclusive (cannot both happen) but not collectively exhaustive (there are other possible outcomes; 2,3,5,6).YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT

MY ARGUMENT HAS BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
THEY ARE FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES ARE THE SAME..
you by some twisted belief imagine that an agnostic is some how more receptive to your cause.
this "change in position" acually hurts your cause more than helps it.

 

[daws101]

Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.

You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)

I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position

Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).

Beliefs versus Knowledge

Definition of ATHEISM
1

archaic: ungodliness, wickedness
2

a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity



1ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\







Definition of AGNOSTIC
1

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

You are spinning it just like Daws.

no you're trying to spin it and failing epically!
YWC COULD YOU BE A LITTLE MORE ADULT HERE AND reply to me directly instead of like a jilted ex girlfriend.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)

I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position

Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).

Beliefs versus Knowledge

Definition of ATHEISM
1

archaic: ungodliness, wickedness
2

a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity



1ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\







Definition of AGNOSTIC
1

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

You are spinning it just like Daws.

no you're trying to spin it and failing epically!
YWC COULD YOU BE A LITTLE MORE ADULT HERE AND reply to me directly instead of like a jilted ex girlfriend.

I was hoping for someone to correct from your side and just admit there is a difference between being an agnostic and an atheist. This is kinda rediculous. Like your side trying to turn micro evolution but in better terms,micro adaptations into macro evolution.

 

[daws101]

Oh, and the juvenile name-calling. Are you 12 years old?

Actually 13, but I've been posing as a 46-year-old man on this forum for some time now so people will take my savant butt serious.

you left out the idiot part of savant.
all true savants have other major mental and emotional problems.
your ignorance and stupidty don't count.
you are no savant, spouting dogma is more closely related to schizophrenia.