Creationists

[daws101]

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.

that's another lie you like to tell yourself .
show me what actual scientific evidence has been "thrown out by evolutionists.
remember Id, creationism, are not evidence

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Go away you foolish child.

 

[Hollie]

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

Spamming won't save your pathetic sidestepping.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Go away you foolish child.

Another sidestep.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I put the troll on ignore again UR she or he is very ignorant,to ignorant to have a discussion with.

 

[Hollie]

I put the troll on ignore again UR she or he is very ignorant,to ignorant to have a discussion with.

It was only a matter of time before you and the other coward went running for the exits.

I've found that confronting fundie creationists with facts and demanding they present facts sends them running.

 

[daws101]

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.

how could I quote you out of context :Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
you're mis interpreting the BBT.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
I think you may be misrepresenting the Big Bang theory. The physics of the Big Bang does not say the universe originated at a specific point. Otherwise, we could calculate the space geographic location of the original bang point. Space is expanding in all directions. The background radiation is located at every point in the sky. 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!!! Because everything is expanding away from our planet and the further an object is away from us, the faster it is accelerating away. Pick a point in the sky. This is happening equally in all directions from us. So let's really see how up on your BB Physics you are. Answer this question: Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?
so Copernicus was wrong?
Is your name Hollie? Emoticons won't hide your ignorance of modern physics. You were lucky you even spelled singularity right.

post #6632 & 6633.


there's the context! you fucking pussy!

 

[daws101]

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.

no it's the truth.
when asked to present evidence you have none the shit you present is not even remotely quantifiable.

 

[daws101]

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 ?

no but your answer is proof you must have taken one too many blows to the head.
ALL YOU DID WAS REPEAT YOURSELF ....so once again ....and ?what's your point? they're only stating fact

 

[daws101]

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?

bump

 

[daws101]

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.

as always you are wrong.. there is no proof of any gods..only the belife in them or the one.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Umm, isn't that just what I said to you? This isn't 3rd grade Holly, where you repeat the same thing back at the other person.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

More evolutionists assumptive language. Like you've ever presented a salient point.

 

[UltimateReality]

I put the troll on ignore again UR she or he is very ignorant,to ignorant to have a discussion with.

It was only a matter of time before you and the other coward went running for the exits.

I've found that confronting fundie creationists with facts and demanding they present facts sends them running.

Actually, they run screaming away in frustration because you are so dense, and can't respond in a rational way. You drove the poor Muslims crazy too. I can imagine there a few muslims with bald spots after interacting with you for a few posts. One can only bang their head against the wall so many times before it becomes a bloody mess.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

how could I quote you out of context :Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
you're mis interpreting the BBT.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
I think you may be misrepresenting the Big Bang theory. The physics of the Big Bang does not say the universe originated at a specific point. Otherwise, we could calculate the space geographic location of the original bang point. Space is expanding in all directions. The background radiation is located at every point in the sky. 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!!! Because everything is expanding away from our planet and the further an object is away from us, the faster it is accelerating away. Pick a point in the sky. This is happening equally in all directions from us. So let's really see how up on your BB Physics you are. Answer this question: Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?
so Copernicus was wrong?
Is your name Hollie? Emoticons won't hide your ignorance of modern physics. You were lucky you even spelled singularity right.

post #6632 & 6633.

there's the context! you f....ng p...y!

If you can't act like a grown up, I am not going to respond to you. Internet courage is always such a joke.

Points from my post:

1. Big Bang did not originate at a specific point.

2. Scientist scoffed at Center of SOLAR SYSTEM theory. The solar system is different than the universe.

3. I state the earth is at the center of the universe and then quote several true observations for why it would appear to be at the center of the universe.

4. But then I asked the question: Is our earth at the original singularity point? Or is there something else going on? This was meant to expose your lack of knowledge on current big bang cosmology, but the whole thing went completely over your head. If you knew the answer, you would have immediately noted that although it appears we are at the center of the universe, it looks that way from just about every vantage point in space due to the way space is being stretched.

So everyone really is at the center of their own universe.

I posted the link so you could clue in but you TOTALLY missed the point and went off on some attack based on your twisted perception of what I was reallly trying to say.

Here you go Daws. This is geared for a child to understand what I am saying. This is actually pretty fun if you read the directions carefully. But I guess since it requires you to actually read something, I don't have alot of faith you and Holly can figure this out.

Exploratorium: Hubble: Where is the center of the Universe?

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

no it's the truth.
when asked to present evidence you have none the shit you present is not even remotely quantifiable.

Then you have to throw out Darwins stupid theory, because the argument I presented uses the same reasoning Lyell and Darwin used. Why am I even arguing with you on this? It's not like you even understand logic and reasoning.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Umm, isn't that just what I said to you? This isn't 3rd grade Holly, where you repeat the same thing back at the other person.

Your usual tactics of sidestepping.

 

[Hollie]

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

no it's the truth.
when asked to present evidence you have none the shit you present is not even remotely quantifiable.

Then you have to throw out Darwins stupid theory, because the argument I presented uses the same reasoning Lyell and Darwin used. Why am I even arguing with you on this? It's not like you even understand logic and reasoning.

You never let your personal biases get in the way of making you look foolish.

I think you will find that limiting your education of the sciences and the natural world by scouring creationist websites and “quoting” from Harun Yahya will only reinforce your inability to separate "faith" from the science of evolution. I understand that you hope to denigrate the sciences by dragging them into the realm of supernaturalism, superstition and fables which are all linked to religious dogma but the success of evolutionary science undeniably separates it from your myths and legends. Not only is the supernaturalist deficient at supporting their claims but they are deficient at offering even the most basic of proofs for these silly claims.

For you edification, Origin of Species accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.

His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.

Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection." Contrary to your false characterization that evo "assume(s) a steady and slow change"," Natural Selection makes no such requirement and negates coincidence completely. Evolution instead proposes the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.

What fundie creationists do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.

 

[Hollie]

Quote: Originally Posted by Hollie
Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
Quote: Originally Posted by 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.

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.
Umm, isn't that just what I said to you? This isn't 3rd grade Holly, where you repeat the same thing back at the other person. 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.

Umm, isn't that just what I said to you? This isn't 3rd grade Holly, where you repeat the same thing back at the other person.

If you're not prepared either emotionally or intellectually to address the posts of others, you should take your various gods and go elsewhere.

 

[UltimateReality]

no it's the truth.
when asked to present evidence you have none the shit you present is not even remotely quantifiable.

Then you have to throw out Darwins stupid theory, because the argument I presented uses the same reasoning Lyell and Darwin used. Why am I even arguing with you on this? It's not like you even understand logic and reasoning.

You never let your personal biases get in the way of making you look foolish.

I think you will find that limiting your education of the sciences and the natural world by scouring creationist websites and “quoting” from Harun Yahya

Speaking of looking foolish, how many times can you say the same thing over again. I finally checked on who Harun Yahya is and he is a muslim!! I think in your delusional state you must be confusing this forum with your islam attack days.