Creationists

[LOki]

Loki, I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying: you admit that dna can be used as a computer to do dna computing, but you are adamant that we shouldn't compare it to the binary code used in a computer, right?

FUCK YOU, YOU INSUFFERABLE DOUCHE!

I admit that DNA can be used IN a DNA computer to do computing--it is just fine to compare THAT to binary code in a conventional computer.

Getting frustrated are we?

With you insistent attempts to misrepresent ... yes.

Your begging the question for sure.

Made up. Again.

Your assertion is a typical cut and paste fundie evo response to Meyer's hypothesis.

Made up ... again.

You run around waving your arms, "It's not code!! It's not code!!" Here is the claim made by the atheist fundies: the code has to stand for something else. The 0's and 1's when strung together, have to mean a word or a number or some other symbol. The evo fundies demand that the TGAC's stand for something. Well they do stupid!!

No they don't. THAT is why geneticists use the term in a very specific manner--that is separate from the lay-use of the term.

They stand for proteins.

No they don't.

Proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code.

They are not symbols you stupid fuck!

When the symbols are assembled together properly, they result in larger sentences like mitochondria, chromosomes and ultimately cells.

No. When symbols are assembled together properly they result in longer sentences ... period. Sentences which are still SYMBOLS. ENTIRELY UNLIKE mitochondria, chromosomes and ultimately cells, which are NOT symbols, or strings of symbols.

The code is transmitted from the old host to the new host, translated into proteins, and then used to assemble an unfathomably complex machine.

This is true, but not in any sense that you're asserting. By complete accident of the common use of the term "code" are you advancing your question-begging argument.

Your begging the question fallacy goes something like this: DNA can't be code like a computer code because computer code comes from a coder and dna doesn't have a coder so its not a code.

How cute. Your clumsy attempt here to make up my argument for me so you can dismiss it is ... well, you know what it is. After all you engineered it. Also do not mistake definitions and application of the law of identity as question begging arguments.

Symbols essentially are perfectly interchangeable without changing what they represent. You can say X = 2 and you can say Y = 2, and in both cases 2 = 2. Changing the symbol does not change what it symbolizes. DNA on the other hand ... you can't just rearrange your As, Ts, Gs, and Cs and expect that the protein won't change. It's just not the way it works.

My argument is that a string of DNA is not a code that means a "protein", because a string of DNA is not actually a symbol for a "protein." You ASSIGN the meaning "symbol" to conveniently express the relationship between DNA & protein, but the simile can only go so far ... in the end--when you remove the meaning (symbol) you assigned to it--DNA remains a molecule involved in a chemical reaction with a protein as the result.

DNA is NOT a code in the equivocating manner in which I predicted you were going to use it.

DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."

 

[UltimateReality]

Science still falls far short of developing satisfactory explanations of many crucial phenomena, such as human consciousness, the Big Bang, the superluminal quantum entanglement of photons across huge distances, even the bioenergetics of the brain of a fly in eluding the swatter. The more we learn about the universe the more wide-open the horizons of mystery. The pretense that Darwinian evolution is a complete theory of life is a huge distraction from the limits and language, the rigor and grandeur, of real scientific discovery. Observes Nobel-laureate physicist Robert Laughlin of Stanford: “The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance.”

CSC - Evolution and Me

 

[LOki]

Science still falls far short of developing satisfactory explanations of many crucial phenomena, such as human consciousness, the Big Bang, the superluminal quantum entanglement of photons across huge distances, even the bioenergetics of the brain of a fly in eluding the swatter. The more we learn about the universe the more wide-open the horizons of mystery. The pretense that Darwinian evolution is a complete theory of life is a huge distraction from the limits and language, the rigor and grandeur, of real scientific discovery. Observes Nobel-laureate physicist Robert Laughlin of Stanford: “The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance.”

CSC - Evolution and Me

"The pretense that Darwinian evolution is a complete theory..." --- is a pretense itself.

 

[UltimateReality]

Symbols essentially are perfectly interchangeable without changing what they represent. You can say X = 2 and you can say Y = 2, and in both cases 2 = 2. Changing the symbol does not change what it symbolizes.

This example is so irrelevant it makes me wonder why I am even arguing with you. Really? Changing the symbol doesn't change what it symbolizes only when the code for the symbols is the same. If X=00100101 and Y=11100111, changing the order of the 0's and 1's in a byte of information absolutely changes the outcome. Try scrambling the bytes on your iPod and let me know how that works out for you.

DNA on the other hand ... you can't just rearrange your As, Ts, Gs, and Cs and expect that the protein won't change. It's just not the way it works.

You can't rearrange the bits of information either and hope your program will function. Please tell me you had a point to this nonsense?

My argument is that a string of DNA is not a code that means a "protein", because a string of DNA is not actually a symbol for a "protein."

Yes, some dna is non-coding dna, meaning it is not used to assemble a protein.

You ASSIGN the meaning "symbol" to conveniently express the relationship between DNA & protein, but the simile can only go so far ... in the end--when you remove the meaning (symbol) you assigned to it--DNA remains a molecule involved in a chemical reaction with a protein as the result.

Wrong!!! Dna is transcribed to Rna which is then translated into a protein by using the code to assemble amino acids into a protein.

DNA and Protein Synthesis

DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."

Not only is the information transferred and decoding to assemble proteins, it is now be revealed that information in the non-coding, i.e., non protein building dna is responsible for the higher processes involving the building of cells into organs and organs into complex organisms.

You are still missing the point, although I have stated it several times (!!!) the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions. Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism. What you can't get is that dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!

ID Vindicated | Uncommon Descent

 

[LOki]

Symbols essentially are perfectly interchangeable without changing what they represent. You can say X = 2 and you can say Y = 2, and in both cases 2 = 2. Changing the symbol does not change what it symbolizes.

This example is so irrelevant it makes me wonder why I am even arguing with you. Really? Changing the symbol doesn't change what it symbolizes only when the code for the symbols is the same.

WTF? You're retarded. Changing the symbol CANNOT change what the symbol represented...EVER. We're not discussing your retarded superstition ... we're not discussing fucking magic.

If X=00100101 and Y=11100111, changing the order of the 0's and 1's in a byte of information absolutely changes the outcome.

I'm not disputing this; so what?

Seriously, you fucking retard ... SO WHAT?

Try scrambling the bytes on your iPod and let me know how that works out for you.

I'm not the one who insists that changing the symbol can change what it represents ... YOU try it retard.

DNA on the other hand ... you can't just rearrange your As, Ts, Gs, and Cs and expect that the protein won't change. It's just not the way it works.

You can't rearrange the bits of information either and hope your program will function. Please tell me you had a point to this nonsense?

You clearly believe that you can alter real things by altering symbols used to represent them.

The point you are refusing to accept is that in the real world, changing the symbol you use to represent a real thing, DOES NOT CHANGE THE REAL THING.

Yes, some dna is non-coding dna, meaning it is not used to assemble a protein.

My argument is that a string of DNA is not a code that means a "protein", because a string of DNA is not actually a symbol for a "protein."

You ASSIGN the meaning "symbol" to conveniently express the relationship between DNA & protein, but the simile can only go so far ... in the end--when you remove the meaning (symbol) you assigned to it--DNA remains a molecule involved in a chemical reaction with a protein as the result.

Wrong!!! Dna is transcribed to Rna which is then translated into a protein by using the code to assemble amino acids into a protein.

DNA and Protein Synthesis

No I'm right. DNA is NOT a code. If it was a code(in the sense you insist it is), you could switch guanine for adenine, and as long as you were consistent in doing so throughout, the nature of the protein coded for (in the sense that geneticists use) would not change.

DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."

Not only is the information transferred and decoding to assemble proteins, it is now be revealed that information in the non-coding, i.e., non protein building dna is responsible for the higher processes involving the building of cells into organs and organs into complex organisms.

You are still missing the point, although I have stated it several times (!!!) the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions. Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism. What you can't get is that dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!

ID Vindicated | Uncommon Descent

Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality. It's like magic! "Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "chemically independent from the informational code it carries"), you could replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change. Good. Just great.

WOW! You're retarded.

 

[Hollie]

We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.

You know, dear. It is in good form to identify the source of your cutting and pasting.

DNA Double Helix

 

[Hollie]

DNA helps direct protein synthesis.7 It also helps to regulate the timing and expression of the synthesis of various proteins within cells. Yet, DNA alone does not determine how individual proteins assemble themselves into larger systems of proteins; still less does it solely determine how cell types, tissue types, and organs arrange themselves into body plans (Harold 1995:2774, Moss 2004). Instead, other factors--such as the three-dimensional structure and organization of the cell membrane and cytoskeleton and the spatial architecture of the fertilized egg--play important roles in determining body plan formation during embryogenesis.

For example, the structure and location of the cytoskeleton influence the patterning of embryos. Arrays of microtubules help to distribute the essential proteins used during development to their correct locations in the cell. Of course, microtubules themselves are made of many protein subunits. Nevertheless, like bricks that can be used to assemble many different structures, the tubulin subunits in the cell's microtubules are identical to one another. Thus, neither the tubulin subunits nor the genes that produce them account for the different shape of microtubule arrays that distinguish different kinds of embryos and developmental pathways. Instead, the structure of the microtubule array itself is determined by the location and arrangement of its subunits, not the properties of the subunits themselves. For this reason, it is not possible to predict the structure of the cytoskeleton of the cell from the characteristics of the protein constituents that form that structure (Harold 2001:125).

Two analogies may help further clarify the point. At a building site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber, wires, nails, drywall, piping, and windows. Yet building materials do not determine the floor plan of the house, or the arrangement of houses in a neighborhood. Similarly, electronic circuits are composed of many components, such as resistors, capacitors, and transistors. But such lower-level components do not determine their own arrangement in an integrated circuit. Biological symptoms also depend on hierarchical arrangements of parts. Genes and proteins are made from simple building blocks--nucleotide bases and amino acids--arranged in specific ways. Cell types are made of, among other things, systems of specialized proteins. Organs are made of specialized arrangements of cell types and tissues. And body plans comprise specific arrangements of specialized organs. Yet, clearly, the properties of individual proteins (or, indeed, the lower-level parts in the hierarchy generally) do not fully determine the organization of the higher-level structures and organizational patterns (Harold 2001:125). It follows that the genetic information that codes for proteins does not determine these higher-level structures either.

Here is the source of your cut and paste - christian creationists.

Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA - Google Books

 

[Hollie]

Appeal to Ignorance

The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also called “Argument from Ignorance.”

Example:

Nobody has ever proved to me there’s a God, so I know there is no God.

Funny you should throw this one around, because Darwinian theory does this ALL THE TIME.

Actually, Darwinian theory does no such thing. Evolutionary theory makes no appeals to designer gods. Because you're unable to understand the topic you're hoping to denigrate, that makes you a poor candidate for entering these discussions.

You're right, it doesn't appeal to designer gods. It does, however, appeal to ignorance.

False. Evolutionary theory begins to explain the diversity of life on the planet. Fundie creationists reel at this because it provides a workable mechanism for understanding the development of life. That obviously conflicts with the Genesis tale and calls into question many other parts of the bible.

What is truly ignorant is the notion that fundies will drag humanity back into the Dark Ages with appelas to fear and superstition.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What kind of data for your lack of "verifiable evidence or valid logic" for your claims do you expect I should provide?

Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?

How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.

I'm not the one imagining anything here.

An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times. We all understand that you find it insufficient to "PROVE" that life arose from non-living matter--we get that. Seriously.

But now it's your turn: Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, 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.

Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

The evidence says you most certainly will.

Noyou have not, epic fail again. Listen real hard there is no viable explanation to how life spontaneously started do you ignore the evolutionist that actually possess a brain that agree with me ?

 

[Havenofear]

Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?

How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.

I'm not the one imagining anything here.

An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times. We all understand that you find it insufficient to "PROVE" that life arose from non-living matter--we get that. Seriously.

But now it's your turn: Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, 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.

Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

The evidence says you most certainly will.

Noyou have not, epic fail again. Listen real hard there is no viable explanation to how life spontaneously started do you ignore the evolutionist that actually possess a brain that agree with me ?

I just read a bunch of this thread, and I'll say this: if god made youwerecreated in his own image, then god must be a simpleton of the highest order.
Because he can't explain something, he thinks it was done by a ghost. Sad really.
My question is: why are you all arguing with him? For fun?

 

[LOki]

Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?

How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.

I'm not the one imagining anything here.

An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times. We all understand that you find it insufficient to "PROVE" that life arose from non-living matter--we get that. Seriously.

But now it's your turn: Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, 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.

Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

The evidence says you most certainly will.

Noyou have not, epic fail again.

An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times.

Listen real hard there is no viable explanation to how life spontaneously started do you ignore the evolutionist that actually possess a brain that agree with me ?

We all understand that you, and the "evolutionist" that agrees with you, find it insufficient to "PROVE" that life arose from non-living matter--we get that. Seriously. So stop asking. We have all failed to prove our case to you, and now we are looking for answers.

So now it's your turn: Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, 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.

Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

The evidence says you most certainly will.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I suspect it's because superstitious retards like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for your claims.

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 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.

Take a look at your posts and see if that is your message

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

My goodness. What an angry fundie.

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.

My what an ignorant fundie.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So... why can't fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?

Just because you continue to play stupid doesn't mean it hasn't been presented here. Why don't you pick up a copy of "Signature in the Cell"?

For a whole $13 you can actually study an opposing viewpoint instead of regurgitating and spewing rehearsed atheistic propaganda.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347989761&sr=8-1&keywords=signature+in+the+cell]Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design: Stephen C. Meyer: 9780061472794: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Meyer is a hack. Precisely why he shills for the creationist ministry you copy and paste from.

Would you care to describe for us the pre-qualifying agreement signed by those who shill for the ICR?

I posted it for you previously.

No he is not a hack,he is bringing to you reality.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm pressing no religious agenda.

I just spit coffee everywhere and fell out of my chair.

The gods are punishing you.

Hollie you are not a god.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cartoons once again to avoid answering questions.

 

[Hollie]

Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?

How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.

I'm not the one imagining anything here.

An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times. We all understand that you find it insufficient to "PROVE" that life arose from non-living matter--we get that. Seriously.

But now it's your turn: Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, 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.

Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

The evidence says you most certainly will.

Noyou have not, epic fail again. Listen real hard there is no viable explanation to how life spontaneously started do you ignore the evolutionist that actually possess a brain that agree with me ?

I'll note with amusement that the "evilutionist" who agree with you are typically connected with Harun Yahya and similar creationist organizations.

Additionally, nothing in the above serves your arguments for supernatural, supermagical gods.

 

[Hollie]

I just spit coffee everywhere and fell out of my chair.

The gods are punishing you.

Hollie you are not a god.

Prove I'm not.

 

[Hollie]

Just because you continue to play stupid doesn't mean it hasn't been presented here. Why don't you pick up a copy of "Signature in the Cell"?

For a whole $13 you can actually study an opposing viewpoint instead of regurgitating and spewing rehearsed atheistic propaganda.

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design: Stephen C. Meyer: 9780061472794: Amazon.com: Books

Meyer is a hack. Precisely why he shills for the creationist ministry you copy and paste from.

Would you care to describe for us the pre-qualifying agreement signed by those who shill for the ICR?

I posted it for you previously.

No he is not a hack,he is bringing to you reality.

That's absurd. Naturally, you side stepped the issue of the pre- qualifying agreement signed by these who shill for the ICR. To refresh your memory, the agreement mandates that no data issued or published by one representing the ICR may conflict with ICR tenets.

Further, the agreement requires that all data issued or published must meet the tenets and guidelines of ICR politburo guidelines.

It's just silly, intellectually dishonest and as biased an approach to discovery as there is. This is why your rabid cutting and pasting just reeks of amateur. The material is manufactured to meet a specific religious worldview and the charlatan who manufacture the data have abandoned any pretense of professional standards.

 

[Youwerecreated]

read through the last few pages and YWC is STILL ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED
UR is still yammering about materialistic religion as the devil's handiwork (oxymoron).
KG flew in on her broom stick babbled something meaningless then flew away..
still wating for gods' barcode...

The genetic code barrier.