Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

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.

You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.

Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.

 

[daws101]

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.

correct what ? for all practical purposes THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
as to the rest of your answer? you're babbling nonsense.

 

[daws101]

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.

You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.

Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.

really? you've been name calling in this thread since page one.
then you make false claims about everything such as ( You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.

Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment)

btw how can I hate something that there is no evidence of?

also that post was not directed at you ...

 

[Hollie]

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.

You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.

Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.

If you could be honest, you might consider some introspection and ask yourself why your failed arguments which are intended to vilify science are cut and pasted with your knowledge that those articles are fraudulent.

There's no reason to blame science for the failure of supernaturalism to be useful as a tool for knowledge.

 

[daws101]

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.

You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.

Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.

If you could be honest, you might consider some introspection and ask yourself why your failed arguments which are intended to vilify science are cut and pasted with your knowledge that those articles are fraudulent.

There's no reason to blame science for the failure of supernaturalism to be useful as a tool for knowledge.

speaking of TOOLS! YWC IS THE TOOLIEST ..THE MASTER OF TOOLS.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.

Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.

really? you've been name calling in this thread since page one.
then you make false claims about everything such as ( You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.

Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment)

btw how can I hate something that there is no evidence of?

also that post was not directed at you ...

Do you need this explained to you ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.

Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.

If you could be honest, you might consider some introspection and ask yourself why your failed arguments which are intended to vilify science are cut and pasted with your knowledge that those articles are fraudulent.

There's no reason to blame science for the failure of supernaturalism to be useful as a tool for knowledge.

I have been waiting on your rebuttal

 

[Youwerecreated]

You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.

Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.

If you could be honest, you might consider some introspection and ask yourself why your failed arguments which are intended to vilify science are cut and pasted with your knowledge that those articles are fraudulent.

There's no reason to blame science for the failure of supernaturalism to be useful as a tool for knowledge.

speaking of TOOLS! YWC IS THE TOOLIEST ..THE MASTER OF TOOLS.

Yeah,you are outmatched and you show it in your responses.

 

[Hollie]

You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.

Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.

If you could be honest, you might consider some introspection and ask yourself why your failed arguments which are intended to vilify science are cut and pasted with your knowledge that those articles are fraudulent.

There's no reason to blame science for the failure of supernaturalism to be useful as a tool for knowledge.

I have been waiting on your rebuttal

I provided that rebuttal.

I provided you with a rebuttal to the comment you posted by Crick. Have you forgotten already?

I provided you with the portion of of Crick's comment you fraudently and dishonestly omitted in your post.

I've had an extensive and interesting discussion of this very topic (evolution), on another board. The major difference being that although there were disagreements, there was never anything like the fraudulent copying and pasting, childish insults and juvenile name-calling that typifies your posts and the posts of your alternate log-in.

I discovered early on that the discussion in this thread representing the creationist side was contrived and phony.

 

[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.

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 ?

By what scale are humans the 'most advanced'? Sure, we might be the most intelligent, but we aren't the fastest, the strongest, we don't have armor, we don't fly, etc. etc.

Maybe this is you attempting to put an intelligence behind the workings of life even when you discuss evolution. Evolution does not attempt to do anything. It is just a description of the changes life undergoes. Something might change and be better suited to the current environment, but then change back at a future date because of a difference in the environment.

 

[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.

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?

As I said to YWC, by what scale are humans better than a bacteria? Are bacteria unable to survive and reproduce sufficiently?

No, I don't think humans are better, in the context of this conversation. Different and better are not the same; more complex and better are not the same.

 

[Gadawg73]

What if God is an alien being that looks like ET?
What will folks think then?

 

[newpolitics]

.

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)?

Common ancestor for who? You have to specify. A common ancestor for two closely related animals will be have existed relatively recently, such as for man and chimp, being in the last few million years. Yet, if you picked two distantly related species you will only find a common ancestor much farther back in time, for instance, a human and a fish. We shared a common ancestor a very, very long time ago. This really isn't that hard to imagine. Just picture a tree diagram. Same idea. Evolution is pretty simple as an idea. I don't understand how it gives creationists such a hard time, yet they seem to muck it up and present a strawman for it without meaning to. Maybe if you actually tried to understand it.

 

[newpolitics]

I will assert right now, that it is your religious fundamentalism that disallows you to examine evolution honestly, because, as I said, it is not a very hard concept to grasp. I hate to break into this, but I can't help it. As I explain such simple concepts, it is obvious that you are simply resisting the use of your intellect, in applying it to these concepts. Therefore, they never seem to make sense to you. You must, by the nature of your belief, deflect any and all implications that might intrude or contradict your version of reality which is informed by a literal interpretation of the bible. Am I wrong? In other words, you won't allow it to make sense, even to yourself. Sure, you could say the same of me with respect to god, but what is there to understand about the religious version? God did it... okay. I get it. Evolution actually takes applied brain power to understand, much more so than "god did it." Yet, creationists want to kick and scream and I postulate, simply do not let the information in. Evolution is a highly intuitive and logical process that makes perfect sense and is backed by evidence. To deny it is simply to show your own resistance to the idea. I can understand, being that your faith rests on a certain body of information, and that is highly threatened by evolution, so you must actively counteract it. I think this is sad. The bible doesn't say "interpret me literally." There are plenty of christians who believe in evolution and the big bang. Why do fundies think they have it right? Being literal isn't virtuous or a sign of faith that god will reward, but rather, indiscretion with deciding what is true. In other words, it is the easy route. I would think that in this age of science, science itself would have garnered some credibility being that the computers we are all using were produced by it, and the incredible progression we have seen technologically, since the enlightenment, has been simply astounding, and entirely due to scientific exploration. But, seemingly, religious fundamentalists, while existing in world surrounded by technology and utilizing it daily, deny its application to our past. I find it intellectually dishonest, at the very least.

I'm sorry to level these kind of statements, but this discussion has been going on for 384 pages. It's time someone calls a spade a spade. You're rejection of evolution and support of ID is absolutely contingent upon your belief that a book written 2,000 years ago is completely inerrant. If you are ever able to step back and look at this objectively someday, you will see how silly it is to any non-fundamentalists.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Nope. You and your fundie evo's are just constantly quoting the mythical creature to substantiate your failed arguments. You cut and pasted it several posts back.

 

[UltimateReality]

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!

Wow! I'd like to see those photo's of John capping Lincoln.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Yeah, cause I was serious when I wrote this Daws.

 

[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.

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 ?

By what scale are humans the 'most advanced'? Sure, we might be the most intelligent, but we aren't the fastest, the strongest, we don't have armor, we don't fly, etc. etc.

Maybe this is you attempting to put an intelligence behind the workings of life even when you discuss evolution. Evolution does not attempt to do anything. It is just a description of the changes life undergoes. Something might change and be better suited to the current environment, but then change back at a future date because of a difference in the environment.

So let me get this straight, you don't think intelligent beings are a higher life form? Last time I checked, ants were building spaceships and sending people to the moon. (but they are darn good tunnel diggers.)

 

[UltimateReality]

What if God is an alien being that looks like ET?
What will folks think then?

Instead of praying, they would probably just phone home.

 

[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 ?

By what scale are humans the 'most advanced'? Sure, we might be the most intelligent, but we aren't the fastest, the strongest, we don't have armor, we don't fly, etc. etc.

Maybe this is you attempting to put an intelligence behind the workings of life even when you discuss evolution. Evolution does not attempt to do anything. It is just a description of the changes life undergoes. Something might change and be better suited to the current environment, but then change back at a future date because of a difference in the environment.

Thanks for more evidence we didn't evolve,why didn't we inherit the land speed and the strength or the eyesight or the sense of smell of some of these creatures before us ? Man has the ability to destroy every predator on this planet. We are at the top of the food chain. We are so superior in every way to the animal kingdom.

The changes are small and as long as God allows this system to contiue you will never see one case of macro-evolution. Never and I already gave you the reason it will never happen and never did happen.