Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Natural processes.
Hollie give me one example in technology that was not the product of intelligence and why would you draw the line there and not assume at a biological level there was no intelligence needed to desing life ?
Funny as intelligent as scientist are even though they have tried they have not been able to design a cell that has the ability to replicate itself with all the technology and complicated machine and the proper enviornments to do so and they can't. Hmm your natural process is beyond our compreshension much like our creator.
Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.
I'm pressing no religious agenda.
Good then. I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.Ahem. "When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?"
I have we know that life reproduces life not non life.
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'm pressing no religious agenda.
I just spit coffee everywhere and fell out of my chair.
My goodness. What an angry fundie.I'm not the one imagining anything here.
An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times.
I guess if you count a series of 43 guesses with not one modern example of even one of the "so called" natural processes occurring in nature as an explanation then sure you have.
Here, maybe if I put it in Evolutionary pseudoscienc terminology, you can understand...
An Intelligent Being we can't comprehend might have engineered the universe. This Being could have visited the planet numerous times throughout history to seed the planet with new life forms. This Being could be the source of the life spark that has not been seen or occurred naturally for anywhere from 10,000 to 3.5 billion years, but instead requires a previous generation as its source for who knows how long. This Entity may have written the digital code in every cell.
SETI searchers for ET and no one seems to have a problem with believing other intelligent life exists elsehwere in our universe. No one seems to question the Multi-verses, all of which are "supernatural". Why is it so hard for you to believe in the possibility of a Master Alien that pre-dates the Big Bang? An Entity that is not constrained by time as we understand it? I will tell you why, because your materialist religion won't allow you to. To believe in something or someone greater would force a change in your miserable, Christian-hating, sour puss existence.
It must be frustrating to propose arguments that rely on belief in magic and supernatural intervention and have others require you to support such nonsense.
No wonder you're so unpleasant.
Evolution, biology and the fosill record is not "Darwinism". That is a term often used by the science loathing fundies who are both ignorant regarding science and have a religious agenda to press.Hollie give me one example in technology that was not the product of intelligence and why would you draw the line there and not assume at a biological level there was no intelligence needed to desing life ?
Funny as intelligent as scientist are even though they have tried they have not been able to design a cell that has the ability to replicate itself with all the technology and complicated machine and the proper enviornments to do so and they can't. Hmm your natural process is beyond our compreshension much like our creator.
Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.
Even funnier is how Darwinism does the same thing.
Except you are too blind, or too stupid, to see it.
Evolution, biology and the fosill record is not "Darwinism". That is a term often used by the science loathing fundies who are both ignorant regarding science and have a religious agenda to press.
Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.
Even funnier is how Darwinism does the same thing.
Except you are too blind, or too stupid, to see it.
It's a shame that fundies are duped by those at Harun Yahya who prey upon the ignorant and gullible.
Hollie, you might be totally ignorant to the game we play but I am not. If I'm a Creationist, you are a Darwinist. YOU really have brought it to that childishly foolish level.This is what is known in the science community as "peer review". That concept is not followed in the creationist community for obvious reasons."University of Toronto biochemistry professor Larry Moran is not happy with the results of the ENCODE project, which report evidence of "biochemical functions for 80% of the genome." Other Darwin-defenders are trying to dismiss this paper as mere "hype". [Don't look now Loki, but one of your boy's unconditional certainties is showing. How embarrassing!!]
Yes that's right -- we're supposed to ignore the intentionally unambiguous abstract of an 18-page Nature paper, the lead out of 30 other simultaneous papers from this project, co-authored by literally hundreds of leading scientists worldwide, because it's "hype." (Read the last two or so pages of the main Nature paper to see the uncommonly long list of international scientists who were involved with this project, and co-authored this paper.) Larry Moran and other vocal Internet Darwin-activists are welcome to disagree and protest these conclusions, but it's clear that the consensus of molecular biologists -- people who actually study how the genome works -- now believe that the idea of "junk DNA" is essentially wrong.
Moran, for his part, thinks that all these other scientists aren't just wrong, but that they are misrepresenting the evidence -- with dire consequences for the public scientific debate over Darwinian evolution. Over on his blog, he's been filling pages with words, pleading with the ENCODE project researchers, and their friends in the media, to tone down their discussions of these results so as not to lend support to intelligent design (or as Moran unendingly puts it, "the creationists" [Hollie loves to copy this guys attack method]). He writes, in various posts:"
What a Darwin Advocate's Response to the ENCODE Project Tells Us about the Darwin Debate - Evolution News & Views
Obviously you have not a clue as to the science of evolution. And let's not pretend that your cutting and pasting is not in lock step ( goose step is a better term) with the YEC / creationist cabal.Evolution, biology and the fosill record is not "Darwinism". That is a term often used by the science loathing fundies who are both ignorant regarding science and have a religious agenda to press.Even funnier is how Darwinism does the same thing.
Except you are too blind, or too stupid, to see it.
It's a shame that fundies are duped by those at Harun Yahya who prey upon the ignorant and gullible.
Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanation. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.I suspect it's because materialistic lost souls like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence that doesn't require numerous "may haves", "might haves" or "could haves", or valid logic for your claims.
Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, have entirely different foundations than beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic. The rational believe what they see. The faithful see what they believe. So while it is obvious that Creationists (among others of a faithful bent) equate science's working hypotheses, candidly asserted speculations, and conditional certainties to the exercise of faith, they are clearly no such thing--because they don't express unconditional certainty like faith does. Such arguments by the faithful ("beleivers", whatever) collapse upon their strawman foundations ... no surprise there.
Any time you make up a fairy tale about what happened in the distant past on planet earth, with no evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently, you are exhibiting IMMENSE FAITH.
No I'm not.And you are liar when you say that science doesn't start from an unconditional certainty.
It does not, Mr. "Could-Have."It absolutely does.
You should get out more. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps, so that you might become acquainted with quantum-field theory.It originates from your materialist metaphysical belief that matter is the only reality.
Quite right there. Folks like me begin with that far-fetched world-view notion that reality is not subject to our perceptions; that reality is objective; that no amount of believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or invisible-white-fathers-who-live-in-the-sky will make them objectively real.You start from the pretense of only looking for evidence that fits your worldview.
No. It's a hypothesis founded upon facts.Also, I think we need to differentiate between REAL SCIENCE, like mechanics and most of physics (all of which can be tested and verified by experimental evidence) and the pseudoscience of the "just so" stories of Darwinism. Here's how it works. We need to come up with a naturalistic reason that fits with natural selection for why Giraffe's look like they do. We come up with a "just so" story about how the giraffes with the long neck may have survived while the short neck ones didn't during times of drought with no low hanging fruit. Then, with a little Darwinian hocus pocus and a few Charles abra cadabra's: without a single shred of observable or testable evidence, poof!!! It is a FACT that the giraffe's long neck is due to natural selection.
No. I didn't. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence leads to a conclusion that does not require or suggest leprechauns of any description.You see, Loki, you started from a position of unconditional certainty that Natural Selection has to be true!!
Not at all so. Scientists do not share in the absolute certainty that is so characteristic of faith.Again, you are so brainwashed, you fail to see how preposterous it is for someone to take conjecture and speculation, and be so arrogant (or ignorant) and call it the "fact" of evolution. What an absolute joke!! Fact my ass. Get off your pompous high horse that you have so much intellectual honesty. Your whole theory of evolution is based on an unconditional certainty. Any evidence contrary to the just so story of natural selection is thrown out.
Yes. And there exists an ultimate creator who lives in an ultimate reality. These are all certainly facts; but are they facts of reality? Does valid logic applied to any verifiable logically valid evidence support the assertion that those facts are consistent with objective reality? If not, then you're just talking fairy-tales, Count Chocula.It is a FACT that I may have been dropped off on earth by aliens and I could have been raised by wolves before I might have grown three feet in a matter of 2 months. I could have been educated at Harvard before I may have taught Differential Equations to pygmies in what could have been the Australian Outback.
Despite the clearly obvious opportunity you have to demonstrate this, you fail to do so. Why is that, Cupcake?Hollie give me one example in technology that was not the product of intelligence and why would you draw the line there and not assume at a biological level there was no intelligence needed to desing life ?
Funny as intelligent as scientist are even though they have tried they have not been able to design a cell that has the ability to replicate itself with all the technology and complicated machine and the proper enviornments to do so and they can't. Hmm your natural process is beyond our compreshension much like our creator.
Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.
Even funnier is how Darwinism does the same thing.
Except you are too blind, or too stupid, to see it.
No. I've read plenty of crappy creationist tracts, and they all follow the same lame format:Good then. I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.I have we know that life reproduces life not non life.
Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
The scientific argument for a Designer is presented in Signature of the Cell. Go read it and then get back to me with your views on what was presented.
"University of Toronto biochemistry professor Larry Moran is not happy with the results of the ENCODE project, which report evidence of "biochemical functions for 80% of the genome." Other Darwin-defenders are trying to dismiss this paper as mere "hype". [Don't look now Loki, but one of your boy's unconditional certainties is showing. How embarrassing!!]
Yes that's right -- we're supposed to ignore the intentionally unambiguous abstract of an 18-page Nature paper, the lead out of 30 other simultaneous papers from this project, co-authored by literally hundreds of leading scientists worldwide, because it's "hype." (Read the last two or so pages of the main Nature paper to see the uncommonly long list of international scientists who were involved with this project, and co-authored this paper.) Larry Moran and other vocal Internet Darwin-activists are welcome to disagree and protest these conclusions, but it's clear that the consensus of molecular biologists -- people who actually study how the genome works -- now believe that the idea of "junk DNA" is essentially wrong.
Moran, for his part, thinks that all these other scientists aren't just wrong, but that they are misrepresenting the evidence -- with dire consequences for the public scientific debate over Darwinian evolution. Over on his blog, he's been filling pages with words, pleading with the ENCODE project researchers, and their friends in the media, to tone down their discussions of these results so as not to lend support to intelligent design (or as Moran unendingly puts it, "the creationists" [Hollie loves to copy this guys attack method]). He writes, in various posts:"
What a Darwin Advocate's Response to the ENCODE Project Tells Us about the Darwin Debate - Evolution News & Views
Obviously you have not a clue as to the science of evolution. And let's not pretend that your cutting and pasting is not in lock step ( goose step is a better term) with the YEC / creationist cabal.Evolution, biology and the fosill record is not "Darwinism". That is a term often used by the science loathing fundies who are both ignorant regarding science and have a religious agenda to press.
It's a shame that fundies are duped by those at Harun Yahya who prey upon the ignorant and gullible.
Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanation. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.
Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, have entirely different foundations than beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic. The rational believe what they see. The faithful see what they believe. So while it is obvious that Creationists (among others of a faithful bent) equate science's working hypotheses, candidly asserted speculations, and conditional certainties to the exercise of faith, they are clearly no such thing--because they don't express unconditional certainty like faith does. Such arguments by the faithful ("beleivers", whatever) collapse upon their strawman foundations ... no surprise there.
Any time you make up a fairy tale about what happened in the distant past on planet earth, with no evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently, you are exhibiting IMMENSE FAITH.
Also FYI, valid logic applied to "evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently" counts as well. Something that your "God" thing assertion do not enjoy either.
No I'm not.
It does not, Mr. "Could-Have."
You should get out more. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps, so that you might become acquainted with quantum-field theory.
It's a nice day, why don't you go out right now?
Quite right there. Folks like me begin with that far-fetched world-view notion that reality is not subject to our perceptions; that reality is objective; that no amount of believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or invisible-white-fathers-who-live-in-the-sky will make them objectively real.
No. It's a hypothesis founded upon facts.
No. I didn't. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence leads to a conclusion that does not require or suggest leprechauns of any description.
Not at all so. Scientists do not share in the absolute certainty that is so characteristic of faith.Again, you are so brainwashed, you fail to see how preposterous it is for someone to take conjecture and speculation, and be so arrogant (or ignorant) and call it the "fact" of evolution. What an absolute joke!! Fact my ass. Get off your pompous high horse that you have so much intellectual honesty. Your whole theory of evolution is based on an unconditional certainty. Any evidence contrary to the just so story of natural selection is thrown out.
The uncertainties candidly understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed to express absolute certainty. Your faith paradigm just does not apply.
Sorry about your retarded luck.
Yes. And there exists an ultimate creator who lives in an ultimate reality. These are all certainly facts; but are they facts of reality? Does valid logic applied to any verifiable logically valid evidence support the assertion that those facts are consistent with objective reality? If not, then you're just talking fairy-tales, Count Chocula.It is a FACT that I may have been dropped off on earth by aliens and I could have been raised by wolves before I might have grown three feet in a matter of 2 months. I could have been educated at Harvard before I may have taught Differential Equations to pygmies in what could have been the Australian Outback.
No. I've read plenty of crappy creationist tracts, and they all follow the same lame format:Good then. I would suppose you are now ready to 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.
The scientific argument for a Designer is presented in Signature of the Cell. Go read it and then get back to me with your views on what was presented.1) Discredit the theory of evolution as if doing so proves creationism.If this one is different, please present the argument yourself.
2) Apply a special-pleading appeal to ignorance for why asserting a creator is valid.
3) Apply a question-begging argument that proves the existence of a creator and validates the evidence that a creator exists.
4) Declare that they cannot be "proven" wrong.
5) Ignore that their premises required no "proof" to begin with.
6) Commence with claims of victory that they refuse to substantiate.
Despite the clearly obvious opportunity you have to demonstrate this, you fail to do so. Why is that, Cupcake?
Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.
Even funnier is how Darwinism does the same thing.
Except you are too blind, or too stupid, to see it.
Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.Any time you make up a fairy tale about what happened in the distant past on planet earth, with no evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently, you are exhibiting IMMENSE FAITH.
Also FYI, valid logic applied to "evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently" counts as well. Something that your "God" thing assertion do not enjoy either.
No I'm not.
It does not, Mr. "Could-Have."
You should get out more. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps, so that you might become acquainted with quantum-field theory.
It's a nice day, why don't you go out right now?
Quite right there. Folks like me begin with that far-fetched world-view notion that reality is not subject to our perceptions; that reality is objective; that no amount of believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or invisible-white-fathers-who-live-in-the-sky will make them objectively real.
No. It's a hypothesis founded upon facts.
No. I didn't. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence leads to a conclusion that does not require or suggest leprechauns of any description.
Not at all so. Scientists do not share in the absolute certainty that is so characteristic of faith.
The uncertainties candidly understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed to express absolute certainty. Your faith paradigm just does not apply.
Sorry about your retarded luck.
Yes. And there exists an ultimate creator who lives in an ultimate reality. These are all certainly facts; but are they facts of reality? Does valid logic applied to any verifiable logically valid evidence support the assertion that those facts are consistent with objective reality? If not, then you're just talking fairy-tales, Count Chocula.It is a FACT that I may have been dropped off on earth by aliens and I could have been raised by wolves before I might have grown three feet in a matter of 2 months. I could have been educated at Harvard before I may have taught Differential Equations to pygmies in what could have been the Australian Outback.
Loki, you can deny the truth about your so called "science" all day long but it won't make it so. Darwinism is steeped in prejudice and purposeful outcomes. But I guess your version of reality is your version, regardless of whether or not you can see how skewed your view of it is from your twisted perception vantage point. You don't need to go outside, why, you can just alter realty and enjoy the outdoors right there at your computer. Later, you can say it is a fact that you may have gone outside.
