Creationists

[Dr.Drock]

You're avoiding my questions again.

I have never denied real science.

I have never denied micro-evolution or in other words micro-adaptations.

You didn't ask a question. And yes you have denied micro-evolution, your view on micro-evolution changes with the wind. Out of one side of your mouth you admit to new species being about to form through evolution, but jump into super denial science hater mode when that same aspect of science is used when discussing humankind.

Which question have you asked that I haven't already answered a half dozen or more times?

No I didn't deny micro-evolution or better named micro-adaptations I denied they lead to macro-evolution.

The question that went ignored was how did chimps and humans share a common ancestor ?

I already provided 2 links to answer that question. On the last page.

And yes you deny all forms of evolution when it comes to the homo sapiens species, you think science skips over us.

 

[LOki]

Surrender hardly, I still feel from the evdence that it is more logical to accept creation over a natural process undirected by intelligence.

Then if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

I already have,living organisms produce living organisms can this be proven or not ?

There is zero evidence that non-life can produce life,zero evidence.

You are asserting then that your creator is dead. Yes? Then whence the life in His creation?

If not, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet..

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Once more, nothing there. Say something of substance and we'll talk.

Ok a couple of short videos then we will dive into mutations.

13-Science Refutes Neo-Darwinism

9-The Fossil Record Refutes Darwinism

Just another superstitious, intellectually dishonest, retard.

I've asked him to stop with the Bible bloggers, does no good.

 

[LOki]

Ok a couple of short videos then we will dive into mutations.

13-Science Refutes Neo-Darwinism

9-The Fossil Record Refutes Darwinism

Just another superstitious, intellectually dishonest, retard.

I've asked him to stop with the Bible bloggers, does no good.

If you've cause to wonder why I'm so free with applying the term "retard" to these faithies, it's a lifetime of exposure to them having literally no reference, outside of those who share a stoic refusal to relinquish belief in the objective reality of their fairy tale, to bring validity to their assertions--intellectual or moral.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Denials of amateurs like koshergirl or Youwerecreated or me mean nothing.

Only empirical data on matters of nature count, not our faith beliefs or emotional feelings.

Speak for yourself.

I am speaking for all faith believers, that we have the strength to recognize the obligation of our belief is not to blur it with an objectivity we cannot document in terms of Biblical genesis.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You didn't ask a question. And yes you have denied micro-evolution, your view on micro-evolution changes with the wind. Out of one side of your mouth you admit to new species being about to form through evolution, but jump into super denial science hater mode when that same aspect of science is used when discussing humankind.

Which question have you asked that I haven't already answered a half dozen or more times?

No I didn't deny micro-evolution or better named micro-adaptations I denied they lead to macro-evolution.

The question that went ignored was how did chimps and humans share a common ancestor ?

I already provided 2 links to answer that question. On the last page.

And yes you deny all forms of evolution when it comes to the homo sapiens species, you think science skips over us.

So they had to cross breed ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok a couple of short videos then we will dive into mutations.

13-Science Refutes Neo-Darwinism

9-The Fossil Record Refutes Darwinism

Just another superstitious, intellectually dishonest, retard.

I've asked him to stop with the Bible bloggers, does no good.

Why ?you present your faith through wiki

 

[Youwerecreated]

You didn't ask a question. And yes you have denied micro-evolution, your view on micro-evolution changes with the wind. Out of one side of your mouth you admit to new species being about to form through evolution, but jump into super denial science hater mode when that same aspect of science is used when discussing humankind.

Which question have you asked that I haven't already answered a half dozen or more times?

No I didn't deny micro-evolution or better named micro-adaptations I denied they lead to macro-evolution.

The question that went ignored was how did chimps and humans share a common ancestor ?

I already provided 2 links to answer that question. On the last page.

And yes you deny all forms of evolution when it comes to the homo sapiens species, you think science skips over us.

Hold on tightly we are gonna shift this conversation to mutations and genetics.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just another superstitious, intellectually dishonest, retard.

I've asked him to stop with the Bible bloggers, does no good.

If you've cause to wonder why I'm so free with applying the term "retard" to these faithies, it's a lifetime of exposure to them having literally no reference, outside of those who share a stoic refusal to relinquish belief in the objective reality of their fairy tale, to bring validity to their assertions--intellectual or moral.

Because you're about 13 years old.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok a couple of short videos then we will dive into mutations.

13-Science Refutes Neo-Darwinism

9-The Fossil Record Refutes Darwinism

Just another superstitious, intellectually dishonest, retard.

I've asked him to stop with the Bible bloggers, does no good.

Are purebred animals the result of a loss of genetic information ,yes or no ?

When we breed animals do we breed information out or new information in ?

 

[LOki]

I've asked him to stop with the Bible bloggers, does no good.

If you've cause to wonder why I'm so free with applying the term "retard" to these faithies, it's a lifetime of exposure to them having literally no reference, outside of those who share a stoic refusal to relinquish belief in the objective reality of their fairy tale, to bring validity to their assertions--intellectual or moral.

Because you're about 13 years old.

Yet not retarded or superstitious.

So genius, are you preparing to put your big girl panties on, or are you going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

 

[koshergrl]

Denials of amateurs like koshergirl or Youwerecreated or me mean nothing.

Only empirical data on matters of nature count, not our faith beliefs or emotional feelings.

Speak for yourself.

I am speaking for all faith believers, that we have the strength to recognize the obligation of our belief is not to blur it with an objectivity we cannot document in terms of Biblical genesis.

"blur it with an objectivity we cannot document?"

What a silly way of putting it.

At any rate, I have no objection to believing ... whatever. My objection is that anti-Christians, who seek out Christians to tell them their *side* is better, somehow. Dragon's assertion is that it's better because he believes it. As if that adds extra credence to what is STILL a matter of "what do you believe?"

At least Christians are honest and we admit that our beliefs are rooted in faith, and have not been DISPROVEN (even if they haven't been proven..and they won't, until the end of time). What is so aggravating about the antis is their insistence that their faith is somehow more substantive than our own...and yet they admit (though they convolute the admission) that there is no solid evidence to support it.

And when you pin them on it, they start arguing to points that have never been made.

 

[Dragon]

"blur it with an objectivity we cannot document?"

That makes no sense whatever.

What he means is, there's a distinction to be drawn between faith and superstition. God is found within the heart, not in objective evidence out in the world. In fact, if God could be proven from objective evidence out in the world, that would, in my view, lessen him. It would make him/her/it only a part of reality, something that could be separated out and looked at, instead of the All-in-All that he/she/it really is.

The sense of the divine presence, openness to the Mysteries, awareness of the sacred -- these are faith. Belief in unsupported dogma such as the Biblical creation account -- that is superstition.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you've cause to wonder why I'm so free with applying the term "retard" to these faithies, it's a lifetime of exposure to them having literally no reference, outside of those who share a stoic refusal to relinquish belief in the objective reality of their fairy tale, to bring validity to their assertions--intellectual or moral.

Because you're about 13 years old.

Yet not retarded or superstitious.

So genius, are you preparing to put your big girl panties on, or are you going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

My belief that we were created is built on faith and rational thought.

 

[koshergrl]

Just another superstitious, intellectually dishonest, retard.

I've asked him to stop with the Bible bloggers, does no good.

Why ?you present your faith through wiki

No shit...

The "3 out of 4 uneducated ignorami believe it so it MUST be true" school of thought.

 

[koshergrl]

"blur it with an objectivity we cannot document?"

That makes no sense whatever.

What he means is, there's a distinction to be drawn between faith and superstition. God is found within the heart, not in objective evidence out in the world. In fact, if God could be proven from objective evidence out in the world, that would, in my view, lessen him. It would make him/her/it only a part of reality, something that could be separated out and looked at, instead of the All-in-All that he/she/it really is.

The sense of the divine presence, openness to the Mysteries, awareness of the sacred -- these are faith. Belief in unsupported dogma such as the Biblical creation account -- that is superstition.

Lol..again you're here to tell us what everybody MEANS and what they THINK.

Does it get tiring misinterpreting people's meanings and thoughts to fit your own life view, all day long?

 

[LOki]

Because you're about 13 years old.

Yet not retarded or superstitious.

So genius, are you preparing to put your big girl panties on, or are you going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

My belief that we were created is built on faith and rational thought.

Nice internally inconsistent dodge, Marsha.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yet not retarded or superstitious.

So genius, are you preparing to put your big girl panties on, or are you going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

My belief that we were created is built on faith and rational thought.

Nice internally inconsistent dodge, Marsha.

You seem to have an opinion on just about everything I post I am beginning to think you have a fatal attraction for me. So I addressed questions to your pal and he seems to have disappeared. So since you have an opinion on just about everything would you like to answer the questions. Let's quit with the baloney,let's see if your theory can stand up to scrutiny.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's the only way to put it. Your faith belief cannot be quantified, it cannot be empirically tested, it depends only on your belief, which you can't prove.

And who here has said his or her belief is greater than yours, koshergirl. That is not true.

Believe as you will, but you will never convince anyone that your basis for your belief is scientific or that your dislike of evolution is empirically based.

You are biased.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because you're about 13 years old.

Yet not retarded or superstitious.

So genius, are you preparing to put your big girl panties on, or are you going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

My belief that we were created is built on faith and rational thought.

Thank you for finally being honest.