Creationists

[daws101]

Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.

You're not paying attention.

Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith.

The theory of evolution requires HUGE faith!!! Have you been ignoring everything since you have been posting here? If you weren't so busy cutting and pasting fundie evo websites like Will Provine, you might have actually seen the information.

below is the best description of the difference between faith in science and faith in religion

Francisco Ayala-- First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs.

 

[daws101]

your whole paragraph makes the false assumption that the toe is science like physics is science. The toe is pseudo science and comparing it to gravity is a favorite tactic of materialists atheists in attempt to give the darwinian myth weight, so to speak.

the toe is science.

You can't accept that because it conflicts with the bible and a 6000 year old earth.

the toe is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from iheu websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.

You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like dawkins and lawrence krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the toe are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.

false ......

 

[daws101]

the toe is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from iheu websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.

You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like dawkins and lawrence krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the toe are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.

toe is a science, based on the same concepts and laws that govern all other areas of scientific inquiry, such as chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, etc... In fact, it is an inter-discplinary field, which makes it quite unique. That you think evolution receives special treatment or exists by suspending the laws of physics or logic (i can infer this when you claim evolution is based on pseudo-science), means that you only wish it to be so, because this claim is not based in fact.

The tree of life, as i have already said, has not become invalid because of horizontal gene transfer, which only happened during the earliest stages of unicellular life on earth, billions of years ago. Instead, there are simply a few "cobweb" additions to link the possible places where genes may have been horizontally transferred. By and large, the tree of life still stands as a valid pictorial model for evolutionary descent. So, nothing has changed. You are now being dishonest in claiming this, which means, you don't want to have an honest debate.


Maybe you've heard of this guy: Theodosius dobzhanzky was an evolutionary biologist and a russian orthodox christian, who is famous for saying,

"nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution."

nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"he criticizes creationists for implying that god is deceitful and asserts that this is blasphemous.

Dobzhansky then goes on to describe the diversity of life on earth, and that the diversity of species cannot be best explained by a creation myth because of the ecological interactions between them. He uses examples of evidence for evolution: The genetic sequence of cytochrome c to show evidence for common descent (citing the work of emanuel margoliash & walter m. Fitch); embryology; and his own work on fruit flies in hawaii. Dobzhansky concludes that scripture and science are two different things: "it is a blunder to mistake the holy scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology"."

-wikipedia.org

evolutionists can't even agree on a method to test fitness or even a common definition for it. If natural selection is based on an organism's fitness, how can we do experiments to determine if natural selection has occurred if we can't even test for it???

how can we do tests for god when there is no evidence at all?

 

[daws101]

Oh sure, repeat my accusation back at me. No one else will notice how silly that looks. You have shown time and again how you twist the truth with your cut and pastes from the IHEU websites. You really should just stick to copying words from Lawrence Krauss website.

You're lashing out.

I can understand your frustration. Every time you and your cohort fundies have tried to force your religion into the school system, you've been thrown out in disgrace.

We will see who has the last laugh. You do realize you are living in satans world of course he doesn't want things about the creator taught.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Couldn't help myself!
as always you are making false declarative statements based on belief not fact...
I'm sure I've seen you making a total ass of yourself outside the county corthouse when I had jury duty!

 

[daws101]

I'm good with that any depth of understanding that you need to seek in order to satisfy your mind is alright. But The Book says, God created Man from the Earth and then blew life into him. Could whatever reasoning you know allow for a self perfecting spirit? Do you have a cap on the universe?

no, but I do enjoy a good blow job...


btw ..Ur you can knock off the assumptive language bullshit anytime.
as your dogma is by far the most assumptive there is...

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm good with that any depth of understanding that you need to seek in order to satisfy your mind is alright. But The Book says, God created Man from the Earth and then blew life into him. Could whatever reasoning you know allow for a self perfecting spirit? Do you have a cap on the universe?

The spirit that created all was perfect so was the creation. Sin brought for death and entropy to all.

We age and die,we are not being prefected.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Science is not religion.

That's why the courts have consistently thrown out fundie creationst babble from a school syllabus.

Sorry dear, the religion you cling to is not real science.

That makes no sense. You obviously despise science and have made every effort to denigrate science. I certainly wouldn't expect a fundie zealot to be able to form rational opinions on science matters.

No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC, don't forget the most supernatural theory of all!!! The multi-universe theory....ahhhh. A supernatural theory invented to counter the 38 finely tuned parameters that make life, even planets, possible in our universe. Okay Holly... 1, 2, 3 Go! Quick! Mention Huran Yahan and the ICR!!!

No need for me to mention your charlatans gods at the ICR.

These hacks have been refuted often enough.

It's just a shame that the two fundies are unable to accept science fact in lieu of creationist ministry falsehoods.

1. Abiogenesis
2. Chemical evolution
3. Dating methods
4. Trasitional fossils
5. Stephen Hawking's explanation of black holes
6. Age of the earth and the universe

The majority of the above have extensive factual support and testable methods for their verification.

I'm never surprised at just how deeply ignorant the fundies choose to be.

You are very naive if you believe what you just posted.

 

[Youwerecreated]

toe is a science, based on the same concepts and laws that govern all other areas of scientific inquiry, such as chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, etc... In fact, it is an inter-discplinary field, which makes it quite unique. That you think evolution receives special treatment or exists by suspending the laws of physics or logic (i can infer this when you claim evolution is based on pseudo-science), means that you only wish it to be so, because this claim is not based in fact.

The tree of life, as i have already said, has not become invalid because of horizontal gene transfer, which only happened during the earliest stages of unicellular life on earth, billions of years ago. Instead, there are simply a few "cobweb" additions to link the possible places where genes may have been horizontally transferred. By and large, the tree of life still stands as a valid pictorial model for evolutionary descent. So, nothing has changed. You are now being dishonest in claiming this, which means, you don't want to have an honest debate.


Maybe you've heard of this guy: Theodosius dobzhanzky was an evolutionary biologist and a russian orthodox christian, who is famous for saying,

"nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution."

nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"he criticizes creationists for implying that god is deceitful and asserts that this is blasphemous.

Dobzhansky then goes on to describe the diversity of life on earth, and that the diversity of species cannot be best explained by a creation myth because of the ecological interactions between them. He uses examples of evidence for evolution: The genetic sequence of cytochrome c to show evidence for common descent (citing the work of emanuel margoliash & walter m. Fitch); embryology; and his own work on fruit flies in hawaii. Dobzhansky concludes that scripture and science are two different things: "it is a blunder to mistake the holy scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology"."

-wikipedia.org

evolutionists can't even agree on a method to test fitness or even a common definition for it. If natural selection is based on an organism's fitness, how can we do experiments to determine if natural selection has occurred if we can't even test for it???

how can we do tests for god when there is no evidence at all?

No one can put God to the test and I would strongly recommend you don't.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're lashing out.

I can understand your frustration. Every time you and your cohort fundies have tried to force your religion into the school system, you've been thrown out in disgrace.

We will see who has the last laugh. You do realize you are living in satans world of course he doesn't want things about the creator taught.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Couldn't help myself!
as always you are making false declarative statements based on belief not fact...
I'm sure I've seen you making a total ass of yourself outside the county corthouse when I had jury duty!

We will see Daws.

 

[Hollie]

Sorry dear, the religion you cling to is not real science.

That makes no sense. You obviously despise science and have made every effort to denigrate science. I certainly wouldn't expect a fundie zealot to be able to form rational opinions on science matters.

No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.

And yet after repeated requests, you cannot identify what theories are based pseudoscience.

I'm sure you do not even know what that term means.

 

[Hollie]

No need for me to mention your charlatans gods at the ICR.

These hacks have been refuted often enough.

It's just a shame that the two fundies are unable to accept science fact in lieu of creationist ministry falsehoods.

1. Abiogenesis
2. Chemical evolution
3. Dating methods
4. Trasitional fossils
5. Stephen Hawking's explanation of black holes
6. Age of the earth and the universe

The majority of the above have extensive factual support and testable methods for their verification.

I'm never surprised at just how deeply ignorant the fundies choose to be.

You are very naive if you believe what you just posted.

I didn't expect anything that would have approached a considered response.

Why do you insist on using the "because I say so" response when that is not an answer to anything?

 

[Hollie]

I'm good with that any depth of understanding that you need to seek in order to satisfy your mind is alright. But The Book says, God created Man from the Earth and then blew life into him. Could whatever reasoning you know allow for a self perfecting spirit? Do you have a cap on the universe?

The spirit that created all was perfect so was the creation. Sin brought for death and entropy to all.

We age and die,we are not being prefected.

Assigning perfection to angry gawds who are hopelessly incompetent as "designers" suggests you are deceitful or naive ... or both.I

 

[daws101]

I'm good with that any depth of understanding that you need to seek in order to satisfy your mind is alright. But The Book says, God created Man from the Earth and then blew life into him. Could whatever reasoning you know allow for a self perfecting spirit? Do you have a cap on the universe?

The spirit that created all was perfect so was the creation. Sin brought for death and entropy to all.

We age and die,we are not being prefected.

more fact ,less sky god stories!

 

[daws101]

Sorry dear, the religion you cling to is not real science.

That makes no sense. You obviously despise science and have made every effort to denigrate science. I certainly wouldn't expect a fundie zealot to be able to form rational opinions on science matters.

No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.

hummmm. then logic would dictate that you must hate your own "theories" for the very same reasons.

 

[daws101]

evolutionists can't even agree on a method to test fitness or even a common definition for it. If natural selection is based on an organism's fitness, how can we do experiments to determine if natural selection has occurred if we can't even test for it???

how can we do tests for god when there is no evidence at all?

No one can put God to the test and I would strongly recommend you don't.

ALL READY HAVE...BEEN THERE DONE THAT....One day maybe you'll grow out of your fear and ignorance...

 

[daws101]

We will see who has the last laugh. You do realize you are living in satans world of course he doesn't want things about the creator taught.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Couldn't help myself!
as always you are making false declarative statements based on belief not fact...
I'm sure I've seen you making a total ass of yourself outside the county corthouse when I had jury duty!

We will see Daws.

I already see...

 

[UltimateReality]

I thought the following is instructive as it basically encapsulates the dishonest and biased program of the Christian creationist program.


AIG's Creation Science Fair - The Panda's Thumb

AIG’s Creation Science Fair

Answers in Genesis is gearing up for a science fair in February 2009 2010. The rules are here. Note that they are parasitic on the Intel Science and Engineering guidelines with two minor exceptions:

3, All projects should be clearly aligned with a biblical principle from a passage or verse.

The student should be able to explain why the verse or passage selected relates to their project. (Students should read the article “God and Natural Law” by Dr. Jason Lisle for an explanation of this concept.)

* Students should consider the context of the verse(s) they are using.

* The verse chosen does not have to directly apply to the project topic (e.g., Scripture does not directly address radio waves), but may simply relate the project to the Creator of the universe.

* Students should read the article “God and Natural Law.”

and

4. Students should be able, with a clear conscience, to sign the AiG Statement of Faith, which upholds the belief in the creation of the universe in six, twenty-four-hour days about 6,000 years ago by the Creator God as revealed in the Bible.

Translation of the “The verse chosen does not have to directly apply to the project topic” is “However my experiment came out, God did it.”

If it weren’t so hot and I weren’t so tired I’d get indignant. But mostly I’m sad: Those kids don’t have a chance. This is part of Ken Ham’s solution to the Already Gone problem he sees: The abandonment of fundamentalism by young people whose doubts start in middle school and high school. Ham’s solution is simple: Lie to them earlier and more often. Pity he isn’t self-aware enough to realize that those doubts begin to arise when kids learn that Ham and their pastor have been lying to them. And that’s the counter to the Hamster: Let ‘em know they’re being lied to in the plainest possible terms.

I think you are a secret follower of Huran Yahan. How do you reconcile your faith in Islam with your evolutionary views?

You're uncomfortable with the truth. You should be. The creationist agenda is drenched in lies and deceit.

You won't address the above because you can't. To expect you to understand such terms as truth, integrity and honesty is contrary to the Christian creationist agenda

But not contrary to your Islamic faith?

 

[UltimateReality]

Paul McBride’s review of the Disco ‘Tute’s “Science and Human Origins”

Paul McBride's review of the Disco 'Tute's "Science and Human Origins" - The Panda's Thumb

“Science and Human Origins” (Amazon; Barnes&Noble) is a slim book recently published by the Disco ‘Tute’s house press. It’s by Ann Gauger and Douglas Axe, members of the Disco Tute’s Biologic Institute, along with Casey Luskin. The book is blurbed thusly:

In this provocative book, three scientists challenge the claim that undirected natural selection is capable of building a human being, critically assess fossil and genetic evidence that human beings share a common ancestor with apes, and debunk recent claims that the human race could not have started from an original couple.

In other words, down with common descent, and while we’re at it, a literal Adam and Eve could have been the ancestors of the whole human species. And by three scientists? Ah, yes, I momentarily forgot that Casey Luskin got a Master’s in Earth Science before he went off to law school and then got a job with the Disco ‘Tute, where he is now listed as “Research Coordinator” (and is there called an attorney rather than a scientist). Once again, one detects a touch of inflationary credentialism. Fortunately for me, I’m spared the chore of reading and critiquing the book. Paul McBride, a Ph.D. candidate in vertebrate macroecology/evolution in New Zealand who writes Still Monkeys, bit the bullet and did a chapter by chapter (all five chapters) review of the book. The book doesn’t come out looking good (is anyone surprised?). I’m going to shamelessly piggyback on McBride’s review. I’ll link to his individual chapter reviews, adding some commentary, below the fold.

Here are McBride’s individual chapter reviews: Chapter 1, in which Ann Gauger

… questions the certainty that evolutionary biologists have in the notion of common descent, with the broad claim that it is merely similarity, rather than relatedness, that we observe. She tells us that certainly humans and chimpanzees share a number of common features, but so do (and this is her example) Ford Tauruses and Mustangs. Yet the latter are designed, indicating that similarity cannot rule out design.

McBride has some fun with that specious analogy, as well as with her ‘random changes in computer programs break the programs’ claim. Someone over at the Disco ‘Tute should tell Gauger to read up on genetic programming. Chapter 2, in which Douglas Axe expands on Gauger’s Chapter 1, elaborating some arguments and finishing with the claim that unless we can identify each and every mutation between humans and our common ancestor with chimps, there’s room for a Designer. I dealt with that argument some time ago. Chapter 3, in which Casey Luskin argues that the hominin fossil record is too fragmentary to infer the descent of H. saps like himself from a common ancestor of him and chimps. (Notice how I restrained myself? ) Like all creationists, Casey has to draw the line between ancient humans (Homo) and earlier fossil (allegedly non-ancestral to humans) apes somewhere, and he draws it between H. habilis and H. erectus. (Recall that there’s considerable disagreement among creationists about just where that line ought to go. Casey is quite a bit deeper in the past than most.) In an update to that post, McBride draws attention to a recent paper plotting brain volume against age of hominin fossils, essentially duplicating material in two posts on that topic by Nick Matzke here and here nearly six years ago. In a recent post on Evolution News, Casey asserts

Hominin fossils generally fall into one of two groups: ape-like species and human-like species, with a large, unbridged gap between them. Despite the hype promoted by many evolutionary paleoanthropologists, the fragmented hominin fossil record does not document the evolution of humans from ape-like precursors.

Look at the graphs in McBride’s post and in Nick’s Thumb posts for data relevant to that claim. Nevertheless, Casey promises that he will be discussing the issue in coming weeks. Chapter 4, on junk DNA by (earth scientist and lawyer) Casey again, gets a two-part review, a prelude which makes pre-reading predictions about what Chapter 4 will claim, and then the review proper. Casey comes through, fulfilling several of McBride’s predictions, including conflating “junk” DNA and non-coding DNA, a pervasive ID creationist habit. I rather like McBride’s conclusion to this chapter review:

Luskin here has continued in the tradition of the other chapters in this book by ignoring all of the best arguments that run contrary to his, while making previously refuted arguments with biased evidence, pretty much in line with what I predicted before reading the chapter. He presents no positive case for a pervasively functional genome, and has only set out to cast doubt on the concept of junk DNA. Even in this, he has comprehensively failed. The book is called Science and Human Origins, but the science is threadbare, and treated unevenly and unfairly.

Finally, Chapter 5, by Gauger again, is the culmination of the book, and can be seen as a rationale for accepting a literal Adam and Eve, a two-person effective breeding population sometime in our ancestry. McBride writes

To convince us of the possiblity of a literal Adam and Eve, Ann Gauger presents to us doubt over whether a single published paper from the 1990s truly supports a large human population since speciation.

McBride has a good critique, and one thing he mentions is kind of funny. In this chapter, Gauger accepts that two human haplotypes are ancient, in the 4-6mya range. But, of course, up there in Chapter 3 Casey argued that the boundary between us (non-descended from apes) humans and those apes’ ancestors is between H. erectus and H. habilis, a split that occurred around 1.8mya. Gauger accepts a ‘human’ trait as originating with critters that are more ancient than Casey is willing to admit as ancestral to humans (or maybe Gauger’s Adam and Eve weren’t humans (tee hee)). In his conclusion McBride wrote:

I have been left wondering why the Discovery Institute, or intelligent design advocates in general, or biblical literalists feel a need to try and accommodate science when they have a belief in a supernatural entity capable of breaking natural laws. In the case of this book, it has left them needing to make all kinds of awkward criticisms of fields in which the authors clearly lack expertise. A lawyer is not the right guy to challenge the world’s palaeoanthropologists, nor the world’s geneticists. Certainly, he shouldn’t be trying to take them all on at once. It will end with him trying to smear the reputation of scientists rather than engaging with their ideas. Accusations that the entire field of palaeoanthropology is driven by personal disputes and that Francis Collins is a bad Christian are simply not compelling reading in a book that is putatively about scientific argument.

And the last paragraph:

Science and Human Origins has to be described first and foremost as being anti-evolution rather than pro-intelligent-design, or pro-science. If it offers solace to those seeking evidence against evolution for their faith, the solace should be as incomplete as the arguments made in the book.

Read all of McBride’s posts on this. He’s an articulate and knowledgeable guy.

Didn't read any of this post and I'm not interested in reading anything from McBride. You are kind of wasting forum space with your irrelevant cut and pastes. What dose this have to do with Islam anyway?

 

[UltimateReality]

another passel of creationist lies

another passel of creationist lies | bad astronomy | discover magazine

usually, when someone spouts creationist garbage, it’s because they’ve been misled. We have a case of this, in spades, in the evansville (indiana) courier press, where a highly deluded creationist has written an editorial so full of crap i’m tempted to call a septic cleaning crew.
To be clear, i think the author is just wrong, but he has clearly been heavily misled — some would say lied to — to by people from answers in genesis, a creationist (hahahahahah) think tank.


Check this out:
…then a little more than a year ago, we again were privileged to hear lectures by former evolutionist and atheist mike riddle and astrophysicist dr. Jason lisle.

To be clear: Mike riddle and jason lisle are from the evil, lying organization answers in genesis.
How can i assert this? Assuming the editorial writer is on the level…

riddle, a former microsoft trainer, spoke of the miller experiment, which produced amino acids inside a test tube. When oxygen was added, the experiment failed. Imagine, this key element to life prohibits any organic molecules from forming.

The miller-urey experiment put the contents of the earth’s original atmosphere (methane, ammonia, hydrogen, water — much like the present atmospheres of jupiter and saturn) into a chamber, and hit it with a spark representing lightning. Amino acids were produced. This shows that the building blocks of life were easy to produce in the primitive conditions on earth. As the idea goes, later, once life took hold, it evolved to produce oxygen (which can provide a lot more energy to the life process). Oxygen is highly corrosive, and so that changed everything. Eventually, in the adapt-or-die conditions, life adapted to use the gas. But before it did, oxygen was essentially poison. So it’s no surprise that it would mess up the miller-urey experiment.
In other words, if riddle used this to promote an anti-evolution stance, he is not telling the truth, when the truth is easy to find and has been accessible for decades. What does that make him?

Incidentally, the mu experiment was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of how life arose; it was the first of a long series of such experiments that are still ongoing. How life first arose is a fascinating question, and i guarantee that no creationist will be able to figure it out… unless they follow the tenets of science. But scientific method to a young-earth creationist is like holy water to a vampire.

To continue…
according to lisle, laser reflectors left behind on the moon’s surface by the apollo astronauts revealed that our lunar neighbor moves a little over an inch farther away from us each year.
How many billions of years earlier was it scraping our mountaintops?

It doesn’t work this way. The moon recedes from the earth due to tides, but the rate at which is recedes depends on many factors. In the past, it receded more slowly than it does today. It formed much closer in to the earth, but there is no problem with it taking billions of years to get to its current distance. Typically, young earth creationists take current values of things and extrapolate them billions of years into the past without considering that the values might have changed.

This argument has been debunked for many years. Decades. If lisle really is an astrophysicist and he said this in a talk, he is either incompetent or a liar. Or both.

One of lisle’s associates calculated the amount of emissions given off by the various belts of jupiter shortly before the voyager probe visited it in the early ’80s. The data returned was in sync with the thousands of years that the mathematics ph.d. Had suggested. The spacecraft had no knowledge of the bible.

This statement is a total mess, but what i think he means is the prediction by creationist russel humphries, before voyager got to uranus and neptune, of their magnetic fields. But his guess was that they were intermediate in strength between earth’s and saturn’s, which is a pretty safe bet given their masses. Also, while it’s true that the magnetic fields of those two planets are weird, humphrey’s model (that god made the planets from water which was then transformed into various other substances) doesn’t predict any of the other odd features (like the tilt of the fields and that they are off-center). He claims it does, but his claim on how some of the odd features formed isn’t really any different than a model assuming the planets are old; in other words, his model doesn’t actually predict those features.

Even a randomly fired gun will sometimes hit the target… by accident.

more cutting and pasting from your fundie evo priest will provine's website.

so? Can you prove it false?

Prove what? You would be under the mistaken impression I was actually reading any of Holly's gargantuan cut and pastes. What's the point? She can't carry on a logical argument anyway. Just keeps repeating ICR and Huran Yahan over and over. I'm done wasting my time reading anymore than a few lines of her mad ravings.