Creationists

[UltimateReality]

You already posted his dishonesty altered quote. I posted the portions of his comments that were deleted.

Do you have any conception of what honesty and integrity mean?

I am saying post the quote where you think I misquoted him.

Your altered quote exists in this thread. Please pay attention. I just advised you of that. It was in the portion of my post you just quoted.

How many times do I need to write out explanations for you?

Condescending.

 

[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.

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

so you were trying and failing to scarcastic and funny? ....keep your day job!

 

[UltimateReality]

You already posted his dishonesty altered quote. I posted the portions of his comments that were deleted.

Do you have any conception of what honesty and integrity mean?

I am saying post the quote where you think I misquoted him.

Your altered quote exists in this thread. Please pay attention. I just advised you of that. It was in the portion of my post you just quoted.

How many times do I need to write out explanations for you?

Condescending.

 

[UltimateReality]

This has been explained to you many times already.

I am asking for your quote of crick hollie,is it that to difficult to provide ?

I don't want to put words in Cricks mouth nor do I want you doing it to me.

It's not a matter of you putting words in Cricks mouth, its the dishonest tactic of removing portions of his comment.

Then show the whole comment. This isn't that hard.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

more stupidity !show me the pics of lee Harvey Oswald doing Kennedy. or the hit squad doing the same!
to backtrack to your original and silly statement. "God loves you and sent his Son to die for you."( post # 5364 this thread UR) (MY REPLY POST #5365: "any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?")
It's AT THIS POINT YOU START THE rationalization dance."(post #5421"How about multiple eyewitness accounts?"UR.
then dodge the whole question.
you have no evidence whatsoever that god sent Jesus anywhere or instructed him to die for our sins .
your reliance on the non provable is telling.

Hey, I didn't say it. You did. Point me to the photographs.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

so you were trying and failing to scarcastic and funny? ....keep your day job!

I'll let you figure it out Daws. You decide. Am I a 13 year old or a 46 year old?

 

[UltimateReality]

I was just reading an article on consciousness. Do you think someone who was blind, deaf, and had no sense of smell from birth would still have the sensation their mind was inside their head? I mean do we think we think where we do because of all the sensory devices attached to our noggin'?

 

[daws101]

Kid, your ignorance is starting to bother me.

Doesn't Christianity have commandments that disallow lying?

At the very least, I would have thought that your mommy or at least your 1st grade teacher would told you what lying is and why it's bad.

But here we are with you not being able to make a connection between copying and pasting falsified "quotes" that define the entirety of your argument and the poverty of your argument.

You have no idea of what you are talking about. I don't lie I give you my opinions which happen to be some what in aghreement with creationist and IDer's. I have told you for eleven years I worked in mutation and cell research. Things I talk about don't just come from a book or wiki.

your right! they come from a totally self imposed intentional ignorance of reality with a high percentage of ego centrism, misinterpretation of facts.
evidenced by the use of false premises such as chicken sex = proof of god.
entropy, aging and disease as punishment from god for so called sin.
a complete denial of the fact of evolution and my personal favorite ,the use of terms like moronic ,dreamworld, etc....when a concept or fact is outside your pin hole pov.
yep!the things you rant about!!!!

 

[Hollie]

I am asking for your quote of crick hollie,is it that to difficult to provide ?

I don't want to put words in Cricks mouth nor do I want you doing it to me.

It's not a matter of you putting words in Cricks mouth, its the dishonest tactic of removing portions of his comment.

Then show the whole comment. This isn't that hard.

You show the comment. You can find it.

 

[daws101]

Hollie, why didn't those traits get passed onto humans ?there would be no reason for natural selection to eliminate them from our gene pool. We are far more intelligent. List goes on and on how we are superior.

Among the most basic precepts of evolution is fitness for survival. I've spent considerable time detailing this subject elsewhere but that was among people who had a much more honest and knowledgeable approach. In no way are humans "far superior to any organism on the planet".

Yours was a misunderstanding and/or a purposeful falsification of the facts.

May I suggest DR.Lee Spetners book,you will learn more about genetics and mutations then you will in any college class.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Shattering-Modern-Evolution/dp/1880582244]Amazon.com: Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (9781880582244): Lee M. Spetner, P.h.d., Lee M. Spetner: Books[/ame]






Also checkout Dr. Lee Spetner
continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max


Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

Now this is a pretty deep dialogue between the two but you can learn something.

bullshit! it's more creationist propaganda

 

[Montrovant]

Have you ever heard someone say that if there is a nuclear war, roaches will be the only things that survive? Now, that's obviously a bit silly, but the idea isn't entirely without merit. There are organisms that can survive environments humans cannot. It's not likely, but certainly possible, that we could kill ourselves off in a nuclear war, but that other creatures would survive. Wouldn't that make them, in that situation, better than humanity?

Better is a terrible word to use, especially as you two are. Being the top of the food chain doesn't make a creature better. It makes them the top of the food chain. Other links in the chain are just as necessary. Being more intelligent doesn't make us better. Perhaps it could, say if we were to populate another planet and then life on earth were wiped out. But just because we have technology doesn't make us better than a bacteria from an evolutionary standpoint. Bacteria don't seem to have any particular problems surviving and reproducing.

As I've said multiple times, better is too subjective a term. You could look at the stars and say, 'White dwarf stars are better than all the others'. It makes as much sense. By some standards that may be true, but only in the right context. If you are explaining what we know about the movement of stars, no particular one would be better. In the same way, it's hard to say that one species is better than all others when speaking of evolution. Too many variables, too subjective.

 

[UltimateReality]

It's not a matter of you putting words in Cricks mouth, its the dishonest tactic of removing portions of his comment.

Then show the whole comment. This isn't that hard.

You show the comment. You can find it.

I guess it was too hard for you.

 

[UltimateReality]

Have you ever heard someone say that if there is a nuclear war, roaches will be the only things that survive? Now, that's obviously a bit silly, but the idea isn't entirely without merit. There are organisms that can survive environments humans cannot. It's not likely, but certainly possible, that we could kill ourselves off in a nuclear war, but that other creatures would survive. Wouldn't that make them, in that situation, better than humanity?

Better is a terrible word to use, especially as you two are. Being the top of the food chain doesn't make a creature better. It makes them the top of the food chain. Other links in the chain are just as necessary. Being more intelligent doesn't make us better. Perhaps it could, say if we were to populate another planet and then life on earth were wiped out. But just because we have technology doesn't make us better than a bacteria from an evolutionary standpoint. Bacteria don't seem to have any particular problems surviving and reproducing.

As I've said multiple times, better is too subjective a term. You could look at the stars and say, 'White dwarf stars are better than all the others'. It makes as much sense. By some standards that may be true, but only in the right context. If you are explaining what we know about the movement of stars, no particular one would be better. In the same way, it's hard to say that one species is better than all others when speaking of evolution. Too many variables, too subjective.

Mon, I believe I quoted the word better from your original post. You are right. It is a horrible word. I prefer to say we are the most intelligent species on the planet and the most advanced when it comes to alot of things, one if which is altering our environment so we don't need the physical protections some animals need. I can't run that fast, but I can get in a car and run the fastest animal on earth, the cheetah, down in a heartbeat. Just remember, cheetah's never prosper.

 

[UltimateReality]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/is_intelligent_062201.html

ID is a historical science based upon the principle of uniformitarianism. The principle of uniformitarianism holds that "the present is the key to the past," where we study present day causes that are at work in the world around us. Once we understand the effects of those causes from present-day observations, we can then study the historical record to see if it too contains the known effects of those causes. When we find those effects, we can infer that the cause was at work.

Here's a brief example.

Geology is a classic case of a historical science. We observe in the present day that rivers remove sediment and cut through rock at a rate, of say, 1 mm per 10 years. If we then observe that a river is in a gorge that is 100 meters deep, we might infer that the river has been cutting that gorge for 100,000 years. (1 year/mm * 1000 mm per meter * 100 m = 100,000 years.) So, by observing present day causes -- that a river cuts through a gorge at 1 mm per year -- we can infer that it cut through the entire gorge, and that it took 100,000 years for that to happen.

Darwin used similar reasoning when he made a case for evolution by natural selection in Origin of Species. Darwin observed present-day populations and observed that they contain variations, and that some variations allow organisms to survive and reproduce better than others. He then theorized that if this process went on deep into the past, it might create lots of variation over long periods of time -- even new species. So he used present-day observations to try to explain past events.

ID uses similar reasoning. ID begins with present-day observations about the causes of information and certain types of complexity. ID observes that in our experience, intelligent agents produce high levels of complex and specified information (CSI). In fact, intelligence is the only known cause of high CSI.

To briefly explain CSI, an event is complex if it is unlikely, and it is specified if it matches some independently derived pattern. Stephen Meyer explains that codes and languages are good examples of high CSI entities that come only from intelligence:

Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source -- from a mind or personal agent.

So when we find codes and languages in nature, we are justified in inferring that an intelligence is at work. Why? Because, again, in our observation-based experience, intelligence is the only known cause of codes and languages. And guess what underlies all living organisms? A language-based code in DNA molecules.

This is not a circular argument because independent, experience-based, empirically derived observations lead us to understand that intelligence is the only known cause of language-based codes -- to wit, high CSI. So we have good independent reasons to infer that an intelligence was at work. Using the principle of uniformitarianism, we infer that if we find language-based codes in nature, they come from intelligent design.

This is no different from when Darwin used uniformitarian-based reasoning to infer descent with modification. So I don't think that ID's argument is circular. It's no more circular than the arguments used in other historical sciences, including Darwinian evolution.

The quotation from Stephen Meyer above also shows why ID is not merely "trying to prove a negative." We have positive evidence for design, because in our experience, we observe that intelligence is the cause of high CSI. This is a positive argument for design, not a negative one.

 

[daws101]

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

more stupidity !show me the pics of lee Harvey Oswald doing Kennedy. or the hit squad doing the same!
to backtrack to your original and silly statement. "God loves you and sent his Son to die for you."( post # 5364 this thread UR) (MY REPLY POST #5365: "any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?")
It's AT THIS POINT YOU START THE rationalization dance."(post #5421"How about multiple eyewitness accounts?"UR.
then dodge the whole question.
you have no evidence whatsoever that god sent Jesus anywhere or instructed him to die for our sins .
your reliance on the non provable is telling.

Hey, I didn't say it. You did. Point me to the photographs.

now you're trying to dodge your original statement .
so why the large lettering?
there are no pics of Boothe in act of shooting Lincoln but their is however the gun used, the wound in Lincolns head several blood soaked pieces of clothing (some of which are in Smithsonian) there's boothe's statement (death to tyrants) when he fled the theatre ..etc...there is no evidence eyewitness or other wise to corroborate this statement:God loves you and sent his Son to die for you."( post # 5364 this thread UR)

 

[daws101]

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

so you were trying and failing to scarcastic and funny? ....keep your day job!

I'll let you figure it out Daws. You decide. Am I a 13 year old or a 46 year old?

your a 46 year male with the emotional development of a 13 year old.

 

[UltimateReality]

more stupidity !show me the pics of lee Harvey Oswald doing Kennedy. or the hit squad doing the same!
to backtrack to your original and silly statement. "God loves you and sent his Son to die for you."( post # 5364 this thread UR) (MY REPLY POST #5365: "any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?")
It's AT THIS POINT YOU START THE rationalization dance."(post #5421"How about multiple eyewitness accounts?"UR.
then dodge the whole question.
you have no evidence whatsoever that god sent Jesus anywhere or instructed him to die for our sins .
your reliance on the non provable is telling.

Hey, I didn't say it. You did. Point me to the photographs.

now you're trying to dodge your original statement .
so why the large lettering?
there are no pics of Boothe in act of shooting Lincoln but their is however the gun used, the wound in Lincolns head several blood soaked pieces of clothing (some of which are in Smithsonian) there's boothe's statement (death to tyrants) when he fled the theatre ..etc...there is no evidence eyewitness or other wise to corroborate this statement:God loves you and sent his Son to die for you."( post # 5364 this thread UR)

No but there are numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus being crucified and then appearing to more than 500 people after his death.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation/dp/0310209307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342550342&sr=8-1&keywords=Lee+strobels+case+for+christ]Amazon.com: The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (9780310209300): Lee Strobel: Books[/ame]

 

[Montrovant]

As usual, you are clueless. Far superior in what way?

Many animals have a far superior sense of smell than humans, many animals have superior running speed, many animals have superior strength, many animals have superior eyesight, etc.

You open yourself to ridicule because you haven't a clue as to the subject matter you blather on about.

Hollie, why didn't those traits get passed onto humans ?there would be no reason for natural selection to eliminate them from our gene pool. We are far more intelligent. List goes on and on how we are superior.

I was watching the news this morning and a very beautiful Asian woman came on the screen. I wondered to myself, other than cosmetic, what is the evolutionary purpose to the shape of their eyes? I mean, why did that mutation survive? What "fitness" could it possibly be responsible for?

That's an interesting question, and without looking it up, the only thing that comes to mind is protection from sunlight/glare. Otherwise, perhaps it was a fairly neutral change/mutation which happened to become dominant in certain areas. It could be as simple as being considered more aesthetically pleasing; women with the epicanthic fold were sought after and able to reproduce more often, passing that particular feature on. Of course, there's also the fact that that one feature is not exclusive to those of Asian heritage. It's a combination of things, I believe, that give the distinct Asian features.

Anyway, I would look to others for a more exhaustive answer to that. This was off the top of my head and could be completely silly.

 

[UltimateReality]

so you were trying and failing to scarcastic and funny? ....keep your day job!

I'll let you figure it out Daws. You decide. Am I a 13 year old or a 46 year old?

your a 46 year male with the emotional development of a 13 year old.

At least I'm not a bitter, hating, angry old atheist.

 

[daws101]

Hey, I didn't say it. You did. Point me to the photographs.

now you're trying to dodge your original statement .
so why the large lettering?
there are no pics of Boothe in act of shooting Lincoln but their is however the gun used, the wound in Lincolns head several blood soaked pieces of clothing (some of which are in Smithsonian) there's boothe's statement (death to tyrants) when he fled the theatre ..etc...there is no evidence eyewitness or other wise to corroborate this statement:God loves you and sent his Son to die for you."( post # 5364 this thread UR)

No but there are numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus being crucified and then appearing to more than 500 people after his death.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation/dp/0310209307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342550342&sr=8-1&keywords=Lee+strobels+case+for+christ]Amazon.com: The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (9780310209300): Lee Strobel: Books[/ame]

so what? lots of people were crucified.. it was a spectator sport at that time.
as to this: then appearing to more than 500 people after his death.

it's hearsay at best there are no non biblical sources to verify it.
since the bible is error ridden highly edited and bias, it can't be considered as evidence.