Creationists

[daws101]

They are not wrong daws,they don't have a clue how it could have happened.

more proof you have reading comp problems

Look you can post all the theories on abiogenesis you want there are about 12 of them. None of them are unanimously supported by the science community that is why there are so many theories on the issue.

We have quoted many on your side saying they have no idea how Abiogenesis could of happened.

and ?what's your point? they're only stating fact

like I said in science it's OK not to have an answer, the search to discover one is what science is all about, just the opposite of what you believe.

 

[daws101]

Answers to key questions of the theory of naturalism is the problem.

how that ? nature is here and it works so any problems are minor.

The biggest and most obvious question is how life began. So which theory of Abiogenesis do you believe happened Daws ?

What put life into motion Daws ?

what is yet to be proven and I don't "believe" in any ,including yours.

 

[UltimateReality]

No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings.

Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.

Sorry, but this statement just doesn't hold up to the historical evidence. Why it was even a Christian Friar, Gregor Mendel (St. Thomas Abbey), who is credited with discovering genetics. So even the modern genetics you twist to fit your theory was based on a discovery by a Christian!!! But then again, you are trying to rewrite history to fit your HATE agenda. You have made it known many times that you are a revisionist. No matter how many times you say Christians haven't contributed to science, you won't be able to erase the truth, as long as there are books around. Better get busy burning them Hitl... er I mean Holly. Sorry, got you confused with another atheist.

 

[UltimateReality]

more proof you have reading comp problems

Look you can post all the theories on abiogenesis you want there are about 12 of them. None of them are unanimously supported by the science community that is why there are so many theories on the issue.

We have quoted many on your side saying they have no idea how Abiogenesis could of happened.

and ?what's your point? they're only stating fact

like I said in science it's OK not to have an answer, the search to discover one is what science is all about, just the opposite of what you believe.

That is, as long as the answer fits the TOE. If it doesn't, they throw the data out and start over.

 

[UltimateReality]

answer the question! were Copernicus and Galileo wrong?
what you've quoted is not physics modern or ancient it's a willful misrepresentation of fact

let's take your lie apart:
1. the universe has no center or no edge, there is no way the the earth would be that center when none exists
2. our solar system including the earth is on the edge of a outer spiral arm of our Galaxy (the milky way) not even close to the center of it!
3.all planets in our solar system orbit the sun. making the sun the center of our solar system ,not the earth
4.expansion is happening everywhere all the time.
the way we know this is not from background radiation which remains constant, (not varying or moving ) that in itself makes it a useless tool to gage expansion.
the thing you are failing to describe is called red shift /blue shift.
red shift is visible light signature that stars give off when moving away from a giving point blue shift is the visible light signature given off when stars are moving toward a given point.
since the universe has no center and no edge the effect would be the same everywhere not just from an earth bound pov.
as always you've got it laughable wrong!

Daws, I said I was going to try and avoid putdowns so I will just ask you the question. You do realize the cosmology website I put up isn't a "creationist" website and represents the absolute latest thinking on physics? I'm guessing you didn't, because your answer seems to infer I was saying something I wasn't. It's not my lie and some of the points you made support the current thinking, although you show you can regurgitate facts without a real understanding of what you are cut and pasting.

For the record, I NEVER said the earth was the center of the solar system. So nice waste of time building up a strawman of things I did not claim. Your prejudice lense is flaring up again. What I said was, from our vantage point on the earth, every large body of matter appears to be moving away from us in every direction, so absent of the physics link I provided for you, it would appear that the earth was the physical location of the big bang, or the proverbial "center of the universe". Had you actually not automatically ASSumed the link was creationist, you would have noted I am not claiming a specific center, like you did. Your original post showed an incorrect line of thinking that the Big Bang occurred at a specific point in the universe. You totally misrepresented what Singularity really is saying. You must have missed these questions for you: "Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?" The answer is that the earth only appears to be at the center of the universe when viewing large collections of matter like galaxies, because everything is moving away from us equally in every direction. The objects farther away are moving faster.

Let's look at some info contained in the link I provided, shall we?

"There is no centre of the universe because there is no edge of the universe. In a finite universe, space is curved so that if you could travel billions of light years in a straight line you would eventually finish back where you started. It is also possible that our universe is infinite. In both examples, groups of galaxies completely fill the universe and are moving apart at all points making the universe expand (see question 2)"

There is a common assumption that the Big Bang was an explosion that occured in empty space and that the explosion expanded into the empty space. This is wrong.

And finally, what you failed to grasp...

"The only answer to the question "Where did the Big Bang happen?" is that it occured everywhere in the Universe."

ARE YOU DONE DIGGING YOUR HOLE EVEN DEEPER .
SO YOU WERE LYING WHEN YOU POSTED THIS: "In fact, scientists scoffed at Christians for their belief the earth is at the center of the solar system. Turns out, the earth is at the center of the universe after all!!" UR....

Typical. Just like you do with the Bible you have quoted me out of context.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.

Not too many people these days being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse or proposing a theory of gravity. A waning influence of the Christian church and people like you was like removing a yoke of oppression from humanity.

Being influenced by vivid imaginations allows you to let go of the evidence for design ?

The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so.

Unfortunately, you are simply the run-of-the-mill fundie creationist who alludes to faulty interpretations of the tired and worn out Analogical Argument to press his religion.

The Analogical Argument follows the paradigm first asserted by William Paley in the 1600's. He asserted the following scenario:
While walking through the woods, one sees a watch lying on the ground. Picking it up, one is struck by its intricacy and quickly concludes that this object is too complicated to have evolved out of nothing; since reality is vastly more complicated than a simple watch, it therefore follows that nature itself has a vastly more complicated Designer.
The first rebuttal to this argument is a repeat of the one above: Even if nature does display design, doesn't it follow that the Designer, vastly more complicated than that which it designs, should also have a Designer, and so on? After all, one is implying:
• I find a watch which implies a designer.

• I meet the watchmaker who is more complicated than the watch, hence the watchmaker must have a designer as well.

• Why do I stop assuming designers when I reach the watchmaker's designer?

Also, how does the watch imply its designer is still an existing entity? Suppose the same watch is found 300 years later. Even though the watch implies a designer, it would be foolish to assert that watchmaker was still alive. We could be fairly certain he was long dead.

It is true the watch implies a designer, yet nature does not imply the same and herein lies the single most devastating element to the theist's analogical argument from design.

How do we know the watch is an artifice, and not simply yet another naturally occuring item lying in the woods? Why is it that we don't stop by every tree, flower, rock, blade of grass and pine cone, considering who might have created each, yet we stop at the watch and think, "Hmmm. Someone left a watch here..."?

Simply put, it is because the watch specifically displays attributes APART from that of nature that we know it is a designed item!

Said another way, man attributes design or artifice to an item because it displays properties that by definition set it apart from nature, which does not display any artificial attributes of any kind. We know the difference because the two are inherently different.

To say that nature and the watch are equally designed is to empty the word "design" of all meaning. It is to say we cannot distinguish between something created with a goal in sight (an artifice) from a tree (a naturally occuring object). No one sees a tree toppled from a storm or burned in a fire and claims, "That tree is broken". No one sees a broken watch and states, "That watch is dead" (they might use that phrasing in slang, but they do not mean it was once alive and now has no biological functions).

As it can easily be seen, the theist is forced into eradicating the context in which we can separate artifice from nature, and then turns around and compares the two having already destroyed it. On this one point alone the analogical argument from design topples into irrationality.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.

Sorry, but this statement just doesn't hold up to the historical evidence. Why it was even a Christian Friar, Gregor Mendel (St. Thomas Abbey), who is credited with discovering genetics. So even the modern genetics you twist to fit your theory was based on a discovery by a Christian!!! But then again, you are trying to rewrite history to fit your HATE agenda. You have made it known many times that you are a revisionist. No matter how many times you say Christians haven't contributed to science, you won't be able to erase the truth, as long as there are books around. Better get busy burning them Hitl... er I mean Holly. Sorry, got you confused with another atheist.

What a nonsense claim.

I wrote out before but you can't bring yourself to accept the fact that christianity was a driving force in prolonging the Dark Ages.

As I wrote out before: Read your history. Christianity forbade medical practice for 1600 years. DaVinci (who recorded his own love affairs with young boys) had to practice medicine under the cover of darkness lest he be burned at the stake. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, lived 500 years before Jesus, and worshipped Zeus. So how come Zeus doesn't get the credit? What is different between Jehovah and Zeus? We can't see either of them, they both had sons with superhuman powers (Hercules and Jesus -- now there would be a cool rumble), they both made human women pregnant, they both rule/create the universe, they both even have books written about them. Here's the difference: People briefly grew up around 2,300 years ago and started to realize the myths were just that-- myths.

Fundie Christians think this world was nothing but barbarians before Jesus-- when in actuality true barbarism sprung up rampantly after Jesus and his devoted fanatics started hacking at anyone who slightly disagreed with them (even the atrocities of the old testament as recounted above pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogrom, wars and genocides that the teachings of Jesus has inspired). You think the Greeks burned old women because they were witches? The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years. For god. Who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden-- "ye shall eat of all things but not of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- for on that day, ye shall die" (they didn't die, as the serpent pointed out, they lived; God lied, Satan told the truth-- how ironic)

 

[UltimateReality]

Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.

Not too many people these days being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse or proposing a theory of gravity. A waning influence of the Christian church and people like you was like removing a yoke of oppression from humanity.

Being influenced by vivid imaginations allows you to let go of the evidence for design ?

The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so.

This is a boldface lie. It has been done here several times.

 

[UltimateReality]

Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.

Sorry, but this statement just doesn't hold up to the historical evidence. Why it was even a Christian Friar, Gregor Mendel (St. Thomas Abbey), who is credited with discovering genetics. So even the modern genetics you twist to fit your theory was based on a discovery by a Christian!!! But then again, you are trying to rewrite history to fit your HATE agenda. You have made it known many times that you are a revisionist. No matter how many times you say Christians haven't contributed to science, you won't be able to erase the truth, as long as there are books around. Better get busy burning them Hitl... er I mean Holly. Sorry, got you confused with another atheist.

What a nonsense claim.

So now you are claiming Mendel is not the father of genetics. Wow, you are more brainwashed than I thought.

 

[UltimateReality]

Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.

Not too many people these days being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse or proposing a theory of gravity. A waning influence of the Christian church and people like you was like removing a yoke of oppression from humanity.

Being influenced by vivid imaginations allows you to let go of the evidence for design ?

The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so.

Unfortunately, you are simply the run-of-the-mill fundie creationist who alludes to faulty interpretations of the tired and worn out Analogical Argument to press his religion.

The Analogical Argument follows the paradigm first asserted by William Paley in the 1600's. He asserted the following scenario:
While walking through the woods, one sees a watch lying on the ground. Picking it up, one is struck by its intricacy and quickly concludes that this object is too complicated to have evolved out of nothing; since reality is vastly more complicated than a simple watch, it therefore follows that nature itself has a vastly more complicated Designer.
The first rebuttal to this argument is a repeat of the one above: Even if nature does display design, doesn't it follow that the Designer, vastly more complicated than that which it designs, should also have a Designer, and so on? After all, one is implying:
• I find a watch which implies a designer.

• I meet the watchmaker who is more complicated than the watch, hence the watchmaker must have a designer as well.

• Why do I stop assuming designers when I reach the watchmaker's designer?

Also, how does the watch imply its designer is still an existing entity? Suppose the same watch is found 300 years later. Even though the watch implies a designer, it would be foolish to assert that watchmaker was still alive. We could be fairly certain he was long dead.

It is true the watch implies a designer, yet nature does not imply the same and herein lies the single most devastating element to the theist's analogical argument from design.

How do we know the watch is an artifice, and not simply yet another naturally occuring item lying in the woods? Why is it that we don't stop by every tree, flower, rock, blade of grass and pine cone, considering who might have created each, yet we stop at the watch and think, "Hmmm. Someone left a watch here..."?

Simply put, it is because the watch specifically displays attributes APART from that of nature that we know it is a designed item!

Said another way, man attributes design or artifice to an item because it displays properties that by definition set it apart from nature, which does not display any artificial attributes of any kind. We know the difference because the two are inherently different.

To say that nature and the watch are equally designed is to empty the word "design" of all meaning. It is to say we cannot distinguish between something created with a goal in sight (an artifice) from a tree (a naturally occuring object). No one sees a tree toppled from a storm or burned in a fire and claims, "That tree is broken". No one sees a broken watch and states, "That watch is dead" (they might use that phrasing in slang, but they do not mean it was once alive and now has no biological functions).

As it can easily be seen, the theist is forced into eradicating the context in which we can separate artifice from nature, and then turns around and compares the two having already destroyed it. On this one point alone the analogical argument from design topples into irrationality.

Nice cut and paste from "The Blind Watchmaker" book. It would be nice to actually hear your thoughts on a topic for once.

 

[Hollie]

Sorry, but this statement just doesn't hold up to the historical evidence. Why it was even a Christian Friar, Gregor Mendel (St. Thomas Abbey), who is credited with discovering genetics. So even the modern genetics you twist to fit your theory was based on a discovery by a Christian!!! But then again, you are trying to rewrite history to fit your HATE agenda. You have made it known many times that you are a revisionist. No matter how many times you say Christians haven't contributed to science, you won't be able to erase the truth, as long as there are books around. Better get busy burning them Hitl... er I mean Holly. Sorry, got you confused with another atheist.

What a nonsense claim.

So now you are claiming Mendel is not the father of genetics. Wow, you are more brainwashed than I thought.

My anticipation was that you would scurry away from any accounting of Christian history and the damage it has caused to scientific progress. You were as disappointing as ever.

For a substantial portion of history, belief in god(s) has not been helpful to Humanity, and in fact history bears out that it is harmful in the extreme. The alleged gods currently proposed are so conveniently impossible to know in any real and rational sense, one would think that there simply is no need for them. Unfortunately, theistic belief is, has been, and always will be a millstone around the necks of thinking, rational beings such as ourselves. Directly in conflict with our nature, contradicting our senses and our powers of reason, theism has thwarted our progress and created lines of division where none truly exist. It is my fervent hope that the fundie creationists will have reason to consider, to ponder, and perhaps to free themselves of ancient and improbable doctrines that while appear superficially to do good, actually inflict more harm -- both physical and "spiritual" than any other aspect of existence.

 

[Hollie]

Being influenced by vivid imaginations allows you to let go of the evidence for design ?

The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so.

Unfortunately, you are simply the run-of-the-mill fundie creationist who alludes to faulty interpretations of the tired and worn out Analogical Argument to press his religion.

The Analogical Argument follows the paradigm first asserted by William Paley in the 1600's. He asserted the following scenario:
While walking through the woods, one sees a watch lying on the ground. Picking it up, one is struck by its intricacy and quickly concludes that this object is too complicated to have evolved out of nothing; since reality is vastly more complicated than a simple watch, it therefore follows that nature itself has a vastly more complicated Designer.
The first rebuttal to this argument is a repeat of the one above: Even if nature does display design, doesn't it follow that the Designer, vastly more complicated than that which it designs, should also have a Designer, and so on? After all, one is implying:
• I find a watch which implies a designer.

• I meet the watchmaker who is more complicated than the watch, hence the watchmaker must have a designer as well.

• Why do I stop assuming designers when I reach the watchmaker's designer?

Also, how does the watch imply its designer is still an existing entity? Suppose the same watch is found 300 years later. Even though the watch implies a designer, it would be foolish to assert that watchmaker was still alive. We could be fairly certain he was long dead.

It is true the watch implies a designer, yet nature does not imply the same and herein lies the single most devastating element to the theist's analogical argument from design.

How do we know the watch is an artifice, and not simply yet another naturally occuring item lying in the woods? Why is it that we don't stop by every tree, flower, rock, blade of grass and pine cone, considering who might have created each, yet we stop at the watch and think, "Hmmm. Someone left a watch here..."?

Simply put, it is because the watch specifically displays attributes APART from that of nature that we know it is a designed item!

Said another way, man attributes design or artifice to an item because it displays properties that by definition set it apart from nature, which does not display any artificial attributes of any kind. We know the difference because the two are inherently different.

To say that nature and the watch are equally designed is to empty the word "design" of all meaning. It is to say we cannot distinguish between something created with a goal in sight (an artifice) from a tree (a naturally occuring object). No one sees a tree toppled from a storm or burned in a fire and claims, "That tree is broken". No one sees a broken watch and states, "That watch is dead" (they might use that phrasing in slang, but they do not mean it was once alive and now has no biological functions).

As it can easily be seen, the theist is forced into eradicating the context in which we can separate artifice from nature, and then turns around and compares the two having already destroyed it. On this one point alone the analogical argument from design topples into irrationality.

Nice cut and paste from "The Blind Watchmaker" book. It would be nice to actually hear your thoughts on a topic for once.

False.

A pathetic dodge as usual. When your arguments are crashing around you, its a convenient tactic to run and hide which defines your arguments. If you can't cut and paste from creationist websites, you have nothing to contribute.

 

[Youwerecreated]

more proof you have reading comp problems

Look you can post all the theories on abiogenesis you want there are about 12 of them. None of them are unanimously supported by the science community that is why there are so many theories on the issue.

We have quoted many on your side saying they have no idea how Abiogenesis could of happened.

and ?what's your point? they're only stating fact

like I said in science it's OK not to have an answer, the search to discover one is what science is all about, just the opposite of what you believe.

12 different theories on Abiogenesis is stating a fact did you slip and hit your head ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Being influenced by vivid imaginations allows you to let go of the evidence for design ?

The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so.

This is a boldface lie. It has been done here several times.

Well it probably went over her head.

 

[Hollie]

Look you can post all the theories on abiogenesis you want there are about 12 of them. None of them are unanimously supported by the science community that is why there are so many theories on the issue.

We have quoted many on your side saying they have no idea how Abiogenesis could of happened.

and ?what's your point? they're only stating fact

like I said in science it's OK not to have an answer, the search to discover one is what science is all about, just the opposite of what you believe.

12 different theories on Abiogenesis is stating a fact did you slip and hit your head ?

There are some 1,400 different gods that have been contrived by humans.

Those gawds and your gawds have all fallen on the slippery slope of non-existence?

 

[Hollie]

The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so.

This is a boldface lie. It has been done here several times.

Well it probably went over her head.

And yet here you are, babbling on with still no proof of your "designer" gawds.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry, but this statement just doesn't hold up to the historical evidence. Why it was even a Christian Friar, Gregor Mendel (St. Thomas Abbey), who is credited with discovering genetics. So even the modern genetics you twist to fit your theory was based on a discovery by a Christian!!! But then again, you are trying to rewrite history to fit your HATE agenda. You have made it known many times that you are a revisionist. No matter how many times you say Christians haven't contributed to science, you won't be able to erase the truth, as long as there are books around. Better get busy burning them Hitl... er I mean Holly. Sorry, got you confused with another atheist.

What a nonsense claim.

So now you are claiming Mendel is not the father of genetics. Wow, you are more brainwashed than I thought.

If she doen't know who and what Mendel was famous for she really has not opened her text books.

 

[Hollie]

What a nonsense claim.

So now you are claiming Mendel is not the father of genetics. Wow, you are more brainwashed than I thought.

If she doen't know who and what Mendel was famous for she really has not opened her text books.

Another failed tactic of sidestepping and denial.

Its not surprising that the two fundies will banter back and forth in desperate attempts to avoid addressing the salient points.

 

[Youwerecreated]

and ?what's your point? they're only stating fact

like I said in science it's OK not to have an answer, the search to discover one is what science is all about, just the opposite of what you believe.

12 different theories on Abiogenesis is stating a fact did you slip and hit your head ?

There are some 1,400 different gods that have been contrived by humans.

Those gawds and your gawds have all fallen on the slippery slope of non-existence?

Hollie, there is only one true God bank on it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is a boldface lie. It has been done here several times.

Well it probably went over her head.

And yet here you are, babbling on with still no proof of your "designer" gawds.

You never heard of Mendel and you want to have this discussion