Creationists

[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...

I'm going from memory here, Daws, but I thought it was you who ripped the creationists a new one with a detailed response to the creationist "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy.

your memory is correct, but as always the facts never stop them from babbling.

Just like your answer for origins of life,your answer is Abiogenesis no matter what the experts on your side say . They call that Daws blind faith.

 

[Hollie]

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.

There is nothing supernatural about genetic code. Much of DNA biology is understood, thus we have replaced lack of knowledge with knowledge. That Is generally the process of science. The fear and superstition you would foist on others is superceded by understanding and knowledge.

It's just a shame that you wish to return humankind to the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis.

I'll be waiting...

Apparently Hollie beat me to it.

HA! HA! HA! You obviously didn't read the links either. Careful who you put your trust in, cheesecake, because Hollie just made you look like a complete fool.

Priceless.

 

[Hollie]

I'm going from memory here, Daws, but I thought it was you who ripped the creationists a new one with a detailed response to the creationist "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy.

your memory is correct, but as always the facts never stop them from babbling.

Just like your answer for origins of life,your answer is Abiogenesis no matter what the experts on your side say . They call that Daws blind faith.

In the realm of science and knowledge, the processes of life can be understood. You would prefer to dwell in the Dark Ages where people lived in trembling fear of angry gods.

Fortunately, the science of learning and discovery supplants the efforts of fundie creationists to promote ignorance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Speaking of the moon, why not explain to us your understanding of allah splitting the moon.

Man you are seriously stupid. I have all said 500 times that I am of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.

You seriously don't know your gods.

Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I believe in evolution and the "big bang" (or whatever the next 'beginning' theory might be).

The only question I'm waiting for to be answered is: How did 'existence' come to be?

That is the only question that separates evolutionist and believers in creation and design.

Who presents the best answer ?

 

[LOki]

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.

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.

Nothing avoided. Not surprised by the hypocritical accusation though.

 

[LOki]

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

It's all good. Thanks!

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is the point where Hollie launches her Ad Hollimen attacks, since she is incapable of launching a logical argument in rebuttal to some of the juicier points in this article.

I'm under no obligation to "refute" your endless cutting and pasting. You and the other creationist have similar habits. You cut and paste volumes of material from fundie creationist websites (material and concepts you don't understand), and then expect others to "refute" that material.

It's not surprising that you failed to address my earlier posts because that would have required you to actually defend your creationist fantasies.

Speaking of "Ad Hollimen" attacks, I note that your best efforts amount not to cutting and pasting but juvenile name-calling.

That is why you are a naturalist ,you don't like obligations, responsibility and accountability.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So let me get this straight, you're saying dna is not a quaternary digital code???

Not in connection with the fundie creationist tag you're hoping to assign to it.

I believe you and the other fundie had tried earlier to add the label "digital machines" to DNA code. Those terms are lifted from creationist ministries.

It was a comparison,they possess the same ability.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you had anything but strawman arguments to discredit evolution you'd have brought them long ago.

I see. Because in your twisted version of reality, if you haven't looked for it, then it doesn't exist. The whole theory of evolution and natural selection rests on the concept of fitness. Yet, like most of Darwinism, the concept is vague at best, and certainly not up to REAL scientific standards.

To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, just look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment. For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffe’s long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.

It sounds eminently reasonable, as such "just so" stories usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, “so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves.” Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed “at belly height or below.” And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches — a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.[18]

Another problem with the usual sort of fitness theorizing becomes evident when you consider the unity of the organism and the multifunctionality of its parts. Holdrege remarks of the elephant that it “stands sometimes on its back legs and extends its trunk to reach high limbs — but no one thinks that the elephant developed its trunk as a result of selection pressures to reach higher food.” The trunk develops within a complex, multifaceted, interwoven unity. It “belongs” to that unity, not to a single isolated function. The effort to analyze out of this unity a particular trait and assign it a separate causal fitness is always artificial. This is certainly true of the giraffe, whose long neck not only allows feeding from high branches, but also raises the head to where the animal has the protection of a large field of view (the giraffe’s vision is much more developed than its sense of smell), serves as an “arm” for the use of the head as a “club” in battles between males, and plays a vital role as a kind of pendulum enabling the animal’s graceful galloping movement across the African plain.

Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

Your Giraffe'ism conspiracy theory was addressed and refuted earlier.

I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.

What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The gods are punishing you.

Hollie you are not a god.

Prove I'm not.

Don't have to your posts have shown that.

 

[Hollie]

I believe in evolution and the "big bang" (or whatever the next 'beginning' theory might be).

The only question I'm waiting for to be answered is: How did 'existence' come to be?

That is the only question that separates evolutionist and believers in creation and design.

Who presents the best answer ?

What a nonsense claim. There is only in question that separates reason and rationally from supernaturalism?

Only a simpleton would accept your silliness.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie you are not a god.

Prove I'm not.

Don't have to your posts have shown that.

You can't disprove. That's fine.

 

[Hollie]

I see. Because in your twisted version of reality, if you haven't looked for it, then it doesn't exist. The whole theory of evolution and natural selection rests on the concept of fitness. Yet, like most of Darwinism, the concept is vague at best, and certainly not up to REAL scientific standards.

To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, just look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment. For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffe’s long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.

It sounds eminently reasonable, as such "just so" stories usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, “so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves.” Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed “at belly height or below.” And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches — a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.[18]

Another problem with the usual sort of fitness theorizing becomes evident when you consider the unity of the organism and the multifunctionality of its parts. Holdrege remarks of the elephant that it “stands sometimes on its back legs and extends its trunk to reach high limbs — but no one thinks that the elephant developed its trunk as a result of selection pressures to reach higher food.” The trunk develops within a complex, multifaceted, interwoven unity. It “belongs” to that unity, not to a single isolated function. The effort to analyze out of this unity a particular trait and assign it a separate causal fitness is always artificial. This is certainly true of the giraffe, whose long neck not only allows feeding from high branches, but also raises the head to where the animal has the protection of a large field of view (the giraffe’s vision is much more developed than its sense of smell), serves as an “arm” for the use of the head as a “club” in battles between males, and plays a vital role as a kind of pendulum enabling the animal’s graceful galloping movement across the African plain.

Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

Your Giraffe'ism conspiracy theory was addressed and refuted earlier.

I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.

What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.

The fundie giraffe conspiracy has been debunked earlier.

Your silly explanation of blood pressure was addressed by link that debunked a boilerplate creationist claim.

How embarrassing for you.

 

[Hollie]

So let me get this straight, you're saying dna is not a quaternary digital code???

Not in connection with the fundie creationist tag you're hoping to assign to it.

I believe you and the other fundie had tried earlier to add the label "digital machines" to DNA code. Those terms are lifted from creationist ministries.

It was a comparison,they possess the same ability.

No, they do not. This was addressed earlier and your goofy comparisons were shown to be fraudulent.

 

[LOki]

I see. Because in your twisted version of reality, if you haven't looked for it, then it doesn't exist. The whole theory of evolution and natural selection rests on the concept of fitness. Yet, like most of Darwinism, the concept is vague at best, and certainly not up to REAL scientific standards.

To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, just look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment. For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffe’s long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.

It sounds eminently reasonable, as such "just so" stories usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, “so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves.” Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed “at belly height or below.” And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches — a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.[18]

Another problem with the usual sort of fitness theorizing becomes evident when you consider the unity of the organism and the multifunctionality of its parts. Holdrege remarks of the elephant that it “stands sometimes on its back legs and extends its trunk to reach high limbs — but no one thinks that the elephant developed its trunk as a result of selection pressures to reach higher food.” The trunk develops within a complex, multifaceted, interwoven unity. It “belongs” to that unity, not to a single isolated function. The effort to analyze out of this unity a particular trait and assign it a separate causal fitness is always artificial. This is certainly true of the giraffe, whose long neck not only allows feeding from high branches, but also raises the head to where the animal has the protection of a large field of view (the giraffe’s vision is much more developed than its sense of smell), serves as an “arm” for the use of the head as a “club” in battles between males, and plays a vital role as a kind of pendulum enabling the animal’s graceful galloping movement across the African plain.

Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

Your Giraffe'ism conspiracy theory was addressed and refuted earlier.

I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.

What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.

It wasn't so terribly amazing when you posted this before, why is it now?

 

[Hollie]

This is the point where Hollie launches her Ad Hollimen attacks, since she is incapable of launching a logical argument in rebuttal to some of the juicier points in this article.

I'm under no obligation to "refute" your endless cutting and pasting. You and the other creationist have similar habits. You cut and paste volumes of material from fundie creationist websites (material and concepts you don't understand), and then expect others to "refute" that material.

It's not surprising that you failed to address my earlier posts because that would have required you to actually defend your creationist fantasies.

Speaking of "Ad Hollimen" attacks, I note that your best efforts amount not to cutting and pasting but juvenile name-calling.

That is why you are a naturalist ,you don't like obligations, responsibility and accountability.

As is so often the case, you make comments that are pointless, irrelevant and false. I just can't express my revulsion for religion when represented by people such as you and the other death-cult fundie. You represent the very worst of superstitious, hateful and cult promoting David Koresh / Jim Jones type psychopaths.

The more we learn about our universe, the clearer it becomes that the fundamental laws of existence are constant with time. The ability to see events that took place millions or billions of years ago verify that even as the universe evolved, is has expanded within the framework of the same natural law that guides it today.

From this, we can derive that the universe does not need your angry, psychopathic gods; that the universe holds to consistent natural laws; your gods do not change or break “the rules” at whim, and no gods perform “miracles” which would be violations of the natural laws governing the universe.

As the extremes of the universe become more clearly visible with the creation of larger telescopes of all kinds, we see that all other galaxies in existence appear to follow the same laws as this one. There is only one set of laws and those same laws function everywhere in the universe without variation.

From this we can derive that the universe is omnipresent, unitary and holds to consistent universal physical laws.

Natural law does not vary with biology. All of nature remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities. All of nature consists of organisms with varying environmental and biological potential but no disparity of biology renders any organism or individual more or less subject to natural law than any other.

The above will be difficult for you as you choose to use your religion to threaten, intimidate and scare those who don't believe as you do. You will find it difficult to accept that your gods are simply a reinvention of earlier gods.

Therefore, you now have good reason to act like a grown-up and cease and desist being an ignorant Harun Yahya groupie.

 

[Hollie]

Man you are seriously stupid. I have all said 500 times that I am of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.

You seriously don't know your gods.

Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.

Your gods have many names because they were taken from many gods before them.

To the back of the line you go with your angry, hateful gods.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

I never said any of that!!! Your the special needs buffoon that insists on building caricatures and then accusing everyone else of doing it.

I won't waste my time with you anymore. Seriously, it reminds me of trying to argue with a drunk when I was a cop. Pointless!!!!!